Posner: What concrete factual arguments do you have against homosexual marriage?
Samuelson: Well, we have, uh, the Burkean argument, that it's reasonable and rational to proceed slowly.
Posner: That's the tradition argument. It's feeble! Look, they could have trotted out Edmund Burke in the Loving case. What's the difference? [Note: Loving v. Virginia was a 1967 decision striking down bans on interracial marriage] . . . There
was a tradition of not allowing black and whites, and, actually, other
interracial couples from marrying. It was a tradition. It got swept
aside. Why is this tradition better?
Samuelson: The tradition is based on experience. And it's the tradition of western culture.
Posner: What experience! It's based on hate, isn't it?
Samuelson: No, not at all, your honor.
Posner: You don't think there's a history of rather savage discrimination against homosexuals?

quote:

---

quote:

---

even then his reasoning then leaves no reason to discriminate against incest or polygamy. Ultimately there just isn't a secular rationale for only one man one woman marriage.

I'd reiterate however that the biggest reason for govt recognized marriage and what marriage actually does is to tie individuals together financially and legally which is stabilizing and positive for society regardless of procreation. If government stopped recognizing marriage today people aren't suddenly going to stop procreating anymore than they already are.

Notice how many now want government to get out of marriage altogether and you never hear "omg but nobody will have kids!"

It's just a poor argument

---

True, the distinction put forth between infertility and impotence does not address incest or polygamy, nor was it intended to do so. It addressed the current debate in the public arena that is between man+woman marriage and same-sex marriage. To address incest or polygamy other arguments are necessary because they are of a different character than same sex relations. At best, I believe those topics to be a non sequitur at this time.

And I disagree with your assertion about no secular rationale existing. I believe I have offered arguments of a secular character. They are grounded in philosophy and the natural order of our world (specifically human reproduction). That it overlaps with my faith tradition (or any divine positive law) does not automatically "baptize" the argument into a religious one. That you and others here do not find it compelling is something altogether different than it not existing in the first place.

Finances etc... may be the biggest reasons for the state's interest in marriage, but it does not preclude other reasons. I think Seamaster offered up 30 pages of jurisprudence that speak to procreation as it relates to marriage and the state's interest. Even some same sex marriage advocates concede that the mother/father dynamic within marriage is ideal in the raising of children as it relates to productive, upright citizens.

I agree with you that "kids are required for marriage" (and vice versa) is a poor argument. Indeed, it is a misstatement of my argument as well as that of Seamaster's two articles. This misstatement is dealing with the actualization of a potentiality (Aristotelian philosophical meaning here) whereas my argument only deals with the potentiality itself (and lack thereof).

---

The reason polygamy isn't a non- sequiter is because it shows this argument isn't really the secular rationale behind your view. Your merely lending support to it momentarily because you think it's the best chance to keep gays from marrying.

You can argue part of the state's interest is supporting God environments for children. Still, what marriage actually does. What actually happens. The direct result of you signing a govt marriage document is two people are legally and financially tied together.

Whether they have kids or not it creates a more stable unit for society.

It also creates more stable units available with Greater potentiality to adopt which is fantastic for children and the continuation of our species.

Yes your argument exists. It's just unbelievably weak

quote:

---

Posner: What concrete factual arguments do you have against homosexual marriage?
Samuelson: Well, we have, uh, the Burkean argument, that it's reasonable and rational to proceed slowly.
Posner: That's the tradition argument. It's feeble! Look, they could have trotted out Edmund Burke in the Loving case. What's the difference? [Note: Loving v. Virginia was a 1967 decision striking down bans on interracial marriage] . . . There
was a tradition of not allowing black and whites, and, actually, other
interracial couples from marrying. It was a tradition. It got swept
aside. Why is this tradition better?
Samuelson: The tradition is based on experience. And it's the tradition of western culture.
Posner: What experience! It's based on hate, isn't it?
Samuelson: No, not at all, your honor.
Posner: You don't think there's a history of rather savage discrimination against homosexuals?

---

Posner is totally wrong there. And I have to wonder if he's very bright at all.

There's a very good reason why marriage has for so long been limited to men and women: Because men and women have kids. Men and men and women and women don't (at least not without help from a third party, which they now get).

Men and women have kids, accidentally and intentionally, and it's good government policy to encourage the formation of families. That simple. That's where the tradition comes from. Not from hate. It's idiotic to claim it comes from hate.

And no, before anyone raises the stupid argument: Allowing men and women that DON't have kids to marry doesn't undermine this. Because men and women DO have kids. As a matter of simplifying things you just let them all get married.

The law in loving was motivated by racial animus. The fact that marriage for so long was limited to men and women was not a product of animus against gays. It's a product of the fact that no one even considered the idea of men and men or women and women marrying.

I'm in favor of gay marriage. But this is something that frustrates me about the debate. There are things we have done for a long time that might have an impact on gays. But we don't do them because of that. We have done them the way we have done them because they made sense.

Posner is acting like that's not the case and that's just dishonest.

Posner's argument and citation to it and others like it is bad.

Telling people that a policy that in no way started because of hate is motivated by hate is a bad start. That this is a primary or even tertiary argument in favor of gay marriage makes many people against it suspicious.

There is an argument in favor of gay marriage. But this isn't it.

quote:

---

And no, before anyone raises the stupid argument: Allowing men and women that DON't have kids to marry doesn't undermine this. Because men and women DO have kids. As a matter of simplifying things you just let them all get married.

---

If marriage is about kids and keeping it simple is the priority then only let those who have kids get married. Easy peasy.

And yes, allowing those who can't have kids to marry absolutely undermines the argument that marriage is about kids thus gays should not have access to it.

quote:

---

quote:

---

And no, before anyone raises the stupid argument: Allowing men and women that DON't have kids to marry doesn't undermine this. Because men and women DO have kids. As a matter of simplifying things you just let them all get married.

---

If marriage is about kids and keeping it simple is the priority then only let those who have kids get married. Easy peasy.

And yes, allowing those who can't have kids to marry absolutely undermines the argument that marriage is about kids thus gays should not have access to it.

---

Nope. Just totally wrong.

The reason why is because that encourages kids OUTSIDE of marriage. You want people to be married and stable first. If they DO have kids outside of marriage. You want them to be able to get married.

That in no way undermines the argument.

That a couple might later find out it doesn't want kids or can't have them doesn't mean you undo a knot you've done. And you don't run around chasing down married couples to figure out why they got married. That's a lot of work with basically no pay off.

And again, you're looking at this from the point of view of it has to be about gays. We weren't going to spend tons of time and energy on this when there was no good reason to. Simply let men and women get married and move on. The whole thing about couples not having kids has come to be an issue only because gays, many years later, have made it one.

It's a simple policy that had absolutely nothing to do with gays. Anyone that says it's remotely comparable to loving is just not telling the truth at all.

quote:

---

The reason polygamy isn't a non- sequiter is because it shows this argument isn't really the secular rationale behind your view. Your merely lending support to it momentarily because you think it's the best chance to keep gays from marrying.

---

The secular rationale? There is but one? And what exactly am I lending support to? Polygamy and incest fail for other reasons. The arguments I have presented fundamentally do not address polygamy and incest. And I don't recall putting forth the notion that there is but one argument/reason for pass/fail criteria. Same sex marriage, incest, and polygamy can meet certain criteria of the ideal, and yet fail on others. As such, they are non-sequiturs to the argument I have previously presented.

quote:

---

You can argue part of the state's interest is supporting God environments for children. Still, what marriage actually does. What actually happens. The direct result of you signing a govt marriage document is two people are legally and financially tied together.

---

Perhaps the bolded portion is the result of auto-correct gone awry?

quote:

---

And yes, allowing those who can't have kids to marry absolutely undermines the argument that marriage is about kids thus gays should not have access to it.

---

Only if your criteria focuses on ends, which is what it appears to do. That you keep stating things like this tells me that you don't quite understand the argument presented.

No, it wasn't "the gays" who made it an issue. Christians made t an issue by declaring that marriage is about children and since a gay couple can't produce children together, they shouldn't be allowed to marry. Don't place the blame where it doesn't belong. You are trying to claim that it has always been about kids but it's just easier to let marriages without kids go through. That's the same argument. And since you know that a number of marriages won't produce children, you can't argue that children are sole or even primary purpose of marriage since a fertility check or a doctor's note would be a reasonable requirement to make to ensure maximum population fertility. Furthermore, the rise of divorce as an acceptable end to a marriage, even a marriage with children, long before gay marriage became an issue, further undermines your argument. Historically, marriage didn't become about the family within the marriage until very recently. Marriage was about estate planning and children a means of passing on the estate. What the hell do you think doweries and planned marriages were for?

Historically, marriage didn't become about the family within the marriage until very recently. Marriage was about estate planning and children a means of passing on the estate. What the hell do you think doweries and planned marriages were for?
------------------
Children are family. My word Sapper. What a horrible post. And one that actually confirms my post. Children = family. Had nothing to do with gays.

It would never have anything to do with gays until they mentioned it.

Yes, you ignore everything till you find something you don't like. Children have always been part of marriage. They have never been the primary, motivating reason for marriage. There have always been personal and familial needs that drove marriage before the children entered into the equation. In part because it is known that children are not a given in any relationship. So again, address the other points. What about divorce? What does that say about children as the focus of a marriage?

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

7 pages.

---

When these threads get so long it's just a reminder that people's minds are made up and you aren't changing them. And what I say now is that the battle is over, SSM will be legal nationwide soon. So whether you like it or not, you just have to accept it.

---

Agreed.

And..

It should be supported. Once again, religion is impeding progress. I don't really see a negative in having more options for adoption. An overwhelming majority of same-sex parents raise well-rounded adults. Why not have the ability to enjoy the benefits of being married while doing it. What's wrong with paying a surrogate to create what will most likely be 2 great contributions to society? A fantastic individual and a great source of income... Oh.. That's right..God.

Why does a good portion of society continue to allow an ancient mostly unsubstantiated book rule their minds? Fear. Good ol' fashion indoctrinated fear.

---

So. True. Thank you.

The religious right are pretty much experts at impeding progress (gay rights, climate change progress, sex education, you name it). I get pretty fired up about the issue of SSM because they are being so selfish by fighting against their right to be legally married and enjoy the same benefits as heteros. And it's all because of the Bible and moral disapproval of homosexuality. It's sickening.

The cool thing about SSM is in order to be for it, all you have to do is not care. Those who are fighting it are going out of their way to do so, all while making up BS arguments as to why we should outlaw it. It's especially hilarious when people like AgBeliever act like the country is doomed and get into the end-of-the-world talk. As if SSM is the worst thing to plague this country.

Their actions show that they'd prefer deadbeat straight parents to raise kids over well-rounded, loving same-sex parents because God. For some reason homosexuality is so much worse than other vices like parents' alcoholism and poor upbringing. For most issues I disagree with, I can at least respect one's view and understand WHY they believe that. For being anti-SSM, I don't really have any sympathy for your view, I think you're being a self-righteous, and you need to get over the fact that gay people exist.

If you think I'm being abrasive... well yeah I am. This battle has gone on way too long, and it's because the religious right keeps fighting it and refuses to move on. Most of us are tired of hearing about it and ready to move forward.

And what gays have made an issue of was getting married, period. The idea that it was restricted to men and women originally out of animus to gays is just absurd.

quote:

---

Yes, you ignore everything till you find something you don't like. Children have always been part of marriage. They have never been the primary, motivating reason for marriage. There have always been personal and familial needs that drove marriage before the children entered into the equation. In part because it is known that children are not a given in any relationship. So again, address the other points. What about divorce? What does that say about children as the focus of a marriage?

---

Your last post:

Historically, marriage didn't become about the family within the marriage until very recently. Marriage was about estate planning and children a means of passing on the estate. What the hell do you think doweries and planned marriages were for?

And I'm not ignoring it. I'll get to it later when I'm not on a mobile. That part just stood out.

If it's not worded well enough for you I will re-word it, but the children produced in a marriage were not the driving force behind marriage or the organizing principle of a marriage. Marriage has been for centuries a property arrangement first and foremost. Affairs and mistresses with children were common for upper class Europeans for centuries. Those were never marriages and never considered marriages. *******y was a major problem for a child because it put them outside the approved property arrangement while giving them a claim on some inheritance. Children were not the focus. Property was the focus.

quote:

---

If it's not worded well enough for you I will re-word it, but the children produced in a marriage were not the driving force behind marriage or the organizing principle of a marriage. Marriage has been for centuries a property arrangement first and foremost. Affairs and mistresses with children were common for upper class Europeans for centuries. Those were never marriages and never considered marriages. *******y was a major problem for a child because it put them outside the approved property arrangement while giving them a claim on some inheritance. Children were not the focus. Property was the focus.

---

Everything you post confirms mine. Setting aside this has nothing to do with excluding gays, it's about estates and where they go. Illegitimacy, as you have argued, was a huge part of that.

It's not gay animus even remotely.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Posner: What concrete factual arguments do you have against homosexual marriage?
Samuelson: Well, we have, uh, the Burkean argument, that it's reasonable and rational to proceed slowly.
Posner: That's the tradition argument. It's feeble! Look, they could have trotted out Edmund Burke in the Loving case. What's the difference? [Note: Loving v. Virginia was a 1967 decision striking down bans on interracial marriage] . . . There
was a tradition of not allowing black and whites, and, actually, other
interracial couples from marrying. It was a tradition. It got swept
aside. Why is this tradition better?
Samuelson: The tradition is based on experience. And it's the tradition of western culture.
Posner: What experience! It's based on hate, isn't it?
Samuelson: No, not at all, your honor.
Posner: You don't think there's a history of rather savage discrimination against homosexuals?

---

Posner is totally wrong there. And I have to wonder if he's very bright at all.

There's a very good reason why marriage has for so long been limited to men and women: Because men and women have kids. Men and men and women and women don't (at least not without help from a third party, which they now get).

Men and women have kids, accidentally and intentionally, and it's good government policy to encourage the formation of families. That simple. That's where the tradition comes from. Not from hate. It's idiotic to claim it comes from hate.

And no, before anyone raises the stupid argument: Allowing men and women that DON't have kids to marry doesn't undermine this. Because men and women DO have kids. As a matter of simplifying things you just let them all get married.

The law in loving was motivated by racial animus. The fact that marriage for so long was limited to men and women was not a product of animus against gays. It's a product of the fact that no one even considered the idea of men and men or women and women marrying.

I'm in favor of gay marriage. But this is something that frustrates me about the debate. There are things we have done for a long time that might have an impact on gays. But we don't do them because of that. We have done them the way we have done them because they made sense.

Posner is acting like that's not the case and that's just dishonest.

---

Posner is probably smarter than all of us here on Texags. And in this case, he is actually doing a very smart thing, which is to cut through the crap and demonstrate that when push really comes to shove in a court of law, the fall-back defense for barring gays from getting married boils down to (1) tradition and (2) uncertainty about what will happen. Both of which are demonstrably flimsy legal arguments for limiting a civil right to only certain groups of people. Further, he forces the state attorneys to admit that they cannot demonstrate any harm that would come from allowing gays to marry. As someone who rejects Posner's philosophy of law and economics, I find it amusing that a conservative, Reagan-appointed judge like him finds no merit in these arguments.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Posner: What concrete factual arguments do you have against homosexual marriage?
Samuelson: Well, we have, uh, the Burkean argument, that it's reasonable and rational to proceed slowly.
Posner: That's the tradition argument. It's feeble! Look, they could have trotted out Edmund Burke in the Loving case. What's the difference? [Note: Loving v. Virginia was a 1967 decision striking down bans on interracial marriage] . . . There
was a tradition of not allowing black and whites, and, actually, other
interracial couples from marrying. It was a tradition. It got swept
aside. Why is this tradition better?
Samuelson: The tradition is based on experience. And it's the tradition of western culture.
Posner: What experience! It's based on hate, isn't it?
Samuelson: No, not at all, your honor.
Posner: You don't think there's a history of rather savage discrimination against homosexuals?

---

Posner is totally wrong there. And I have to wonder if he's very bright at all.

There's a very good reason why marriage has for so long been limited to men and women: Because men and women have kids. Men and men and women and women don't (at least not without help from a third party, which they now get).

Men and women have kids, accidentally and intentionally, and it's good government policy to encourage the formation of families. That simple. That's where the tradition comes from. Not from hate. It's idiotic to claim it comes from hate.

And no, before anyone raises the stupid argument: Allowing men and women that DON't have kids to marry doesn't undermine this. Because men and women DO have kids. As a matter of simplifying things you just let them all get married.

The law in loving was motivated by racial animus. The fact that marriage for so long was limited to men and women was not a product of animus against gays. It's a product of the fact that no one even considered the idea of men and men or women and women marrying.

I'm in favor of gay marriage. But this is something that frustrates me about the debate. There are things we have done for a long time that might have an impact on gays. But we don't do them because of that. We have done them the way we have done them because they made sense.

Posner is acting like that's not the case and that's just dishonest.

---

Posner is probably smarter than all of us here on Texags. And in this case, he is actually doing a very smart thing, which is to cut through the crap and demonstrate that when push really comes to shove in a court of law, the fall-back defense for barring gays from getting married boils down to (1) tradition and (2) uncertainty about what will happen. Both of which are demonstrably flimsy legal arguments for limiting a civil right to only certain groups of people. Further, he forces the state attorneys to admit that they cannot demonstrate any harm that would come from allowing gays to marry. I find it amusing that a conservative, Reagan-appointed judge like Posner finds no merit in these arguments.

---

If posner doesn't understand the difference between the law in loving and why gays historically were not part of the marriage arrangement, he's stupid. Or being intentionally obtuse.

quote:

---

quote:

---

If it's not worded well enough for you I will re-word it, but the children produced in a marriage were not the driving force behind marriage or the organizing principle of a marriage. Marriage has been for centuries a property arrangement first and foremost. Affairs and mistresses with children were common for upper class Europeans for centuries. Those were never marriages and never considered marriages. *******y was a major problem for a child because it put them outside the approved property arrangement while giving them a claim on some inheritance. Children were not the focus. Property was the focus.

---

Everything you post confirms mine. Setting aside this has nothing to do with excluding gays, it's about estates and where they go. Illegitimacy, as you have argued, was a huge part of that.

It's not gay animus even remotely.

---

It breaks up the idea that marriage is about children. And I'm not aware of anyone claiming marriage was designed originally with any special animus towards gays. The claim is that modern marriage is a violation of equal protection rights because it focuses only on heterosexual relationships. The counter has been, "Think of the children! Just not, you know, when it comes to divorce."

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

If it's not worded well enough for you I will re-word it, but the children produced in a marriage were not the driving force behind marriage or the organizing principle of a marriage. Marriage has been for centuries a property arrangement first and foremost. Affairs and mistresses with children were common for upper class Europeans for centuries. Those were never marriages and never considered marriages. *******y was a major problem for a child because it put them outside the approved property arrangement while giving them a claim on some inheritance. Children were not the focus. Property was the focus.

---

Everything you post confirms mine. Setting aside this has nothing to do with excluding gays, it's about estates and where they go. Illegitimacy, as you have argued, was a huge part of that.

It's not gay animus even remotely.

---

It breaks up the idea that marriage is about children. And I'm not aware of anyone claiming marriage was designed originally with any special animus towards gays. The claim is that modern marriage is a violation of equal protection rights because it focuses only on heterosexual relationships. The counter has been, "Think of the children! Just not, you know, when it comes to divorce."

---

You've stated several times why it had to do with children.

Why are you asking me to defend divorce?

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Posner: What concrete factual arguments do you have against homosexual marriage?
Samuelson: Well, we have, uh, the Burkean argument, that it's reasonable and rational to proceed slowly.
Posner: That's the tradition argument. It's feeble! Look, they could have trotted out Edmund Burke in the Loving case. What's the difference? [Note: Loving v. Virginia was a 1967 decision striking down bans on interracial marriage] . . . There
was a tradition of not allowing black and whites, and, actually, other
interracial couples from marrying. It was a tradition. It got swept
aside. Why is this tradition better?
Samuelson: The tradition is based on experience. And it's the tradition of western culture.
Posner: What experience! It's based on hate, isn't it?
Samuelson: No, not at all, your honor.
Posner: You don't think there's a history of rather savage discrimination against homosexuals?

---

Posner is totally wrong there. And I have to wonder if he's very bright at all.

There's a very good reason why marriage has for so long been limited to men and women: Because men and women have kids. Men and men and women and women don't (at least not without help from a third party, which they now get).

Men and women have kids, accidentally and intentionally, and it's good government policy to encourage the formation of families. That simple. That's where the tradition comes from. Not from hate. It's idiotic to claim it comes from hate.

And no, before anyone raises the stupid argument: Allowing men and women that DON't have kids to marry doesn't undermine this. Because men and women DO have kids. As a matter of simplifying things you just let them all get married.

The law in loving was motivated by racial animus. The fact that marriage for so long was limited to men and women was not a product of animus against gays. It's a product of the fact that no one even considered the idea of men and men or women and women marrying.

I'm in favor of gay marriage. But this is something that frustrates me about the debate. There are things we have done for a long time that might have an impact on gays. But we don't do them because of that. We have done them the way we have done them because they made sense.

Posner is acting like that's not the case and that's just dishonest.

---

Posner is probably smarter than all of us here on Texags. And in this case, he is actually doing a very smart thing, which is to cut through the crap and demonstrate that when push really comes to shove in a court of law, the fall-back defense for barring gays from getting married boils down to (1) tradition and (2) uncertainty about what will happen. Both of which are demonstrably flimsy legal arguments for limiting a civil right to only certain groups of people. Further, he forces the state attorneys to admit that they cannot demonstrate any harm that would come from allowing gays to marry. I find it amusing that a conservative, Reagan-appointed judge like Posner finds no merit in these arguments.

---

If posner doesn't understand the difference between the law in loving and why gays historically were not part of the marriage arrangement, he's stupid. Or being intentionally obtuse.

---

Why don't you go read the transcripts or listen to the audio so that you can understand the context. Maybe ask yourself how you could better argue the case than the attorneys did in this case and in others. Ask yourself why the states keep losing these cases?

How do you show that barring gays from marriage (even though they can adopt and raise children) harms anyone?

quote:

---

You guys don't understand Jacques. He picks one tiny thing that isn't really pertinent to the overall conversation then humps it for a very long time without climax.

He's stuck on the very end of posners statement where he suggests gays are traditionally not include in marriage because of hate. It's a Completely worthless tangent which is why jacques likes it. Her can say he supports gay marriage while arguing with the people he doesn't like.

Thread Jacquesed

---

This is familiar. It's the line you take every time you're wrong. Which is often.

Marco posted something and I responded.

Setting aside Marcos post I actually think this is pretty important. Courts may resolve this at one level, but like abortion I don't think this is going away soon.

As someone whose mind has been changed on the topic I can tell you that the arguments generally made in favor aren't what's persuasive.

Understanding the history of marriage and it's entirely non discriminatory purpose is key to making the best argument for why the right should be extended now.

Hyping up divorce is actually counterproductive. High divorce rates aren't good. Bad for families. They're also a product of change. When you want change it's silly to point to other change that was allowed that has had bad results.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Posner: What concrete factual arguments do you have against homosexual marriage?
Samuelson: Well, we have, uh, the Burkean argument, that it's reasonable and rational to proceed slowly.
Posner: That's the tradition argument. It's feeble! Look, they could have trotted out Edmund Burke in the Loving case. What's the difference? [Note: Loving v. Virginia was a 1967 decision striking down bans on interracial marriage] . . . There
was a tradition of not allowing black and whites, and, actually, other
interracial couples from marrying. It was a tradition. It got swept
aside. Why is this tradition better?
Samuelson: The tradition is based on experience. And it's the tradition of western culture.
Posner: What experience! It's based on hate, isn't it?
Samuelson: No, not at all, your honor.
Posner: You don't think there's a history of rather savage discrimination against homosexuals?

---

Posner is totally wrong there. And I have to wonder if he's very bright at all.

There's a very good reason why marriage has for so long been limited to men and women: Because men and women have kids. Men and men and women and women don't (at least not without help from a third party, which they now get).

Men and women have kids, accidentally and intentionally, and it's good government policy to encourage the formation of families. That simple. That's where the tradition comes from. Not from hate. It's idiotic to claim it comes from hate.

And no, before anyone raises the stupid argument: Allowing men and women that DON't have kids to marry doesn't undermine this. Because men and women DO have kids. As a matter of simplifying things you just let them all get married.

The law in loving was motivated by racial animus. The fact that marriage for so long was limited to men and women was not a product of animus against gays. It's a product of the fact that no one even considered the idea of men and men or women and women marrying.

I'm in favor of gay marriage. But this is something that frustrates me about the debate. There are things we have done for a long time that might have an impact on gays. But we don't do them because of that. We have done them the way we have done them because they made sense.

Posner is acting like that's not the case and that's just dishonest.

---

Posner is probably smarter than all of us here on Texags. And in this case, he is actually doing a very smart thing, which is to cut through the crap and demonstrate that when push really comes to shove in a court of law, the fall-back defense for barring gays from getting married boils down to (1) tradition and (2) uncertainty about what will happen. Both of which are demonstrably flimsy legal arguments for limiting a civil right to only certain groups of people. Further, he forces the state attorneys to admit that they cannot demonstrate any harm that would come from allowing gays to marry. I find it amusing that a conservative, Reagan-appointed judge like Posner finds no merit in these arguments.

---

If posner doesn't understand the difference between the law in loving and why gays historically were not part of the marriage arrangement, he's stupid. Or being intentionally obtuse.

---

Why don't you go read the transcripts or listen to the audio so that you can understand the context. Maybe ask yourself how you could better argue the case than the attorneys did in this case and in others. Ask yourself why the states keep losing these cases?

How do you show that barring gays from marriage (even though they can adopt and raise children) harms anyone?

---

They lose because judges decide. Sometimes the decisions are right for the wrong reasons. Sometimes they're right for the right reasons. Sometimes they're wrong.

Losing a case doesn't mean you're wrong.

And again, you're speaking to a former opponent that is now in favor of it. So I don't get the purpose of the last question.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Posner: What concrete factual arguments do you have against homosexual marriage?
Samuelson: Well, we have, uh, the Burkean argument, that it's reasonable and rational to proceed slowly.
Posner: That's the tradition argument. It's feeble! Look, they could have trotted out Edmund Burke in the Loving case. What's the difference? [Note: Loving v. Virginia was a 1967 decision striking down bans on interracial marriage] . . . There
was a tradition of not allowing black and whites, and, actually, other
interracial couples from marrying. It was a tradition. It got swept
aside. Why is this tradition better?
Samuelson: The tradition is based on experience. And it's the tradition of western culture.
Posner: What experience! It's based on hate, isn't it?
Samuelson: No, not at all, your honor.
Posner: You don't think there's a history of rather savage discrimination against homosexuals?

---

Posner is totally wrong there. And I have to wonder if he's very bright at all.

There's a very good reason why marriage has for so long been limited to men and women: Because men and women have kids. Men and men and women and women don't (at least not without help from a third party, which they now get).

Men and women have kids, accidentally and intentionally, and it's good government policy to encourage the formation of families. That simple. That's where the tradition comes from. Not from hate. It's idiotic to claim it comes from hate.

And no, before anyone raises the stupid argument: Allowing men and women that DON't have kids to marry doesn't undermine this. Because men and women DO have kids. As a matter of simplifying things you just let them all get married.

The law in loving was motivated by racial animus. The fact that marriage for so long was limited to men and women was not a product of animus against gays. It's a product of the fact that no one even considered the idea of men and men or women and women marrying.

I'm in favor of gay marriage. But this is something that frustrates me about the debate. There are things we have done for a long time that might have an impact on gays. But we don't do them because of that. We have done them the way we have done them because they made sense.

Posner is acting like that's not the case and that's just dishonest.

---

Posner is probably smarter than all of us here on Texags. And in this case, he is actually doing a very smart thing, which is to cut through the crap and demonstrate that when push really comes to shove in a court of law, the fall-back defense for barring gays from getting married boils down to (1) tradition and (2) uncertainty about what will happen. Both of which are demonstrably flimsy legal arguments for limiting a civil right to only certain groups of people. Further, he forces the state attorneys to admit that they cannot demonstrate any harm that would come from allowing gays to marry. I find it amusing that a conservative, Reagan-appointed judge like Posner finds no merit in these arguments.

---

If posner doesn't understand the difference between the law in loving and why gays historically were not part of the marriage arrangement, he's stupid. Or being intentionally obtuse.

---

Why don't you go read the transcripts or listen to the audio so that you can understand the context. Maybe ask yourself how you could better argue the case than the attorneys did in this case and in others. Ask yourself why the states keep losing these cases?

How do you show that barring gays from marriage (even though they can adopt and raise children) harms anyone?

---

They lose because judges decide. Sometimes the decisions are right for the wrong reasons. Sometimes they're right for the right reasons. Sometimes they're wrong.

Losing a case doesn't mean you're wrong.

And again, you're speaking to a former opponent that is now in favor of it. So I don't get the purpose of the last question.

---

Well you fooled me then.

It's become impossible to follow what jacques is arguing in the past several posts.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

7 pages.

---

When these threads get so long it's just a reminder that people's minds are made up and you aren't changing them. And what I say now is that the battle is over, SSM will be legal nationwide soon. So whether you like it or not, you just have to accept it.

---

Agreed.

And..

It should be supported. Once again, religion is impeding progress. I don't really see a negative in having more options for adoption. An overwhelming majority of same-sex parents raise well-rounded adults. Why not have the ability to enjoy the benefits of being married while doing it. What's wrong with paying a surrogate to create what will most likely be 2 great contributions to society? A fantastic individual and a great source of income... Oh.. That's right..God.

Why does a good portion of society continue to allow an ancient mostly unsubstantiated book rule their minds? Fear. Good ol' fashion indoctrinated fear.

---

So. True. Thank you.

The religious right are pretty much experts at impeding progress (gay rights, climate change progress, sex education, you name it). I get pretty fired up about the issue of SSM because they are being so selfish by fighting against their right to be legally married and enjoy the same benefits as heteros. And it's all because of the Bible and moral disapproval of homosexuality. It's sickening.

The cool thing about SSM is in order to be for it, all you have to do is not care. Those who are fighting it are going out of their way to do so, all while making up BS arguments as to why we should outlaw it. It's especially hilarious when people like AgBeliever act like the country is doomed and get into the end-of-the-world talk. As if SSM is the worst thing to plague this country.

Their actions show that they'd prefer deadbeat straight parents to raise kids over well-rounded, loving same-sex parents because God. For some reason homosexuality is so much worse than other vices like parents' alcoholism and poor upbringing. For most issues I disagree with, I can at least respect one's view and understand WHY they believe that. For being anti-SSM, I don't really have any sympathy for your view, I think you're being a self-righteous, and you need to get over the fact that gay people exist.

If you think I'm being abrasive... well yeah I am. This battle has gone on way too long, and it's because the religious right keeps fighting it and refuses to move on. Most of us are tired of hearing about it and ready to move forward.

---

I've posted several times that I am. Disagreeing with a bad argument doesn't mean I'm against it.

I think today the best argument is that with gays wanting stable relationships and families it makes sense to encourage that. There is a fairness component. And I don't dismiss that.

But at a time when marriage seems old fashioned I'm impressed by people wanting to do it. I see that as a good thing.

I think if you want to appeal to people you are better off appealing to their good nature. Make a positive argument. Don't appeal to negativity.

Man + woman + kids = marriage

So if a guy and girl want to get married but are incapable of having kids based on their equipment, their marriage should not be allowed?

quote:

---

It's become impossible to follow what jacques is arguing in the past several posts.

---

I'm for gay marriage.

I think it's a lie to say it's past limited to men and women has no purpose or is discriminatory.

Not that hard.

quote:

---

You guys don't understand Jacques. He picks one tiny thing that isn't really pertinent to the overall conversation then humps it for a very long time without climax.

He's stuck on the very end of posners statement where he suggests gays are traditionally not include in marriage because of hate. It's a Completely worthless tangent which is why jacques likes it. Her can say he supports gay marriage while arguing with the people he doesn't like.

Thread Jacquesed

---

so I was exactly right.

quote:

---

So if a guy and girl want to get married but are incapable of having kids based on their equipment, their marriage should not be allowed?

---

See the video in the other thread. Its in the OP.

You mean that pointless pile of drivel that attempts to reify a modern conception of marriage as existing throughout all of western history (or is it all history everywhere, that seems to change)? The video that tries desperately to cling to an essentialist conception of words as though the words themselves are not constructed reflections of time and place? Your source needs to try and grasp his Derrida. He'd be better off for it.