Marriage Debate

[Ziggurat]

But, since you've been ignoring such arguments or dismissing them without much cause, I don't think you're really that intersted in exploring counter arguments.

Wrong. It's just that Scott's been about the only person who has put forward such arguments. And when such arguments HAVE actually been put forward, I've acknowleged them, and prompted people to pursue those points further. But nobody ever did. That's not ME ignoring arguments.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Yeah, I have a funny default position like that, too. You know...for absence of a sound reason not to allow people to do something, let them do it.

I call that support for freedom, but maybe freedom is something that we really don't want in the USA.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

I think you misunderstood. The article poses the question, "Has marriage been defined by history, culture and tradition since the dawn of Western civilization, or is it an evolving social institution that should change with the times?" It wasn't my attention to twist your words around. You said, "It's time for some progression" and that's why I picked up on that same question in the article. Sorry.

Well, since the "Dawn of Western Civilization" marriage has involved:

*concubines

*women as property

*degrees of marriage (the Irish specifically)

*public consumations

*executions for adultery

*executions for the VICTIMS of rape

*retroactive dissulusions of marriage resulting in the bastardy of children born in wedlock

. . . and many others besides. Would you like me to go on?

 

[Ziggurat]

Yes, that is exactly what I said. "any reason the government gives to get married is in support for procreation, irregardless of whether or not this reason has anything to do with procreation itself and irregardless of the fact that marriage is neither required nor necessary for procreation."

I think you're confusing reason with incentive. I was talking about incentives, and you just substituted "reason" as if it was the same thing.

Who, then, determines the purpose for a state's laws?

As a matter of practice, when the law is before the court, the attorney general presents the purpose, based upon the best case they can make for that law. They need not use the same arguments that legislators relied upon when passing the law (and no record of that reasoning need be kept in any case).

Is it your position that it would be legitimate for the state to not allow infertal and elderly couples to marry?

I'm saying the state has the constitutional authority to make SOME distinctions in this regard, yes (though as I have pointed out, the state does not have the power to make every distinction required to exclude all possible infertile couples). I make no claims as to whether or not it should. And the state's ability to do something does not require it to do so.

um... maybe you should review the thread. I've been arguing that allowing same sex marriage will not only increase the stability of gay house holds but also provide a larger pool for adoption and foster agencies to draw upon to help raise children in a more stable environment than the might otherwise have.

And I asked for followup on those points: how big a pool is this? How good a home do same-sex couples provide? How much of an advantage would such an expanded pool provide? How much of a problem does a shortage of such homes create? I haven't ignored these points at all, I've rather specifically asked for MORE information on them.

I know you don't see it as such an issue, but I'm fairly confident that within a generation or two, the general population will view laws against gay marriage with same distain that this generation views laws against mixed race marriages.

Popular attitudes undoubtedly will shift, and I agree that this is the general direction they're moving. Which is also part of why I've been saying all along that same-sex marriage advocates shouldn't be trying to fight the issue in the courts, because when things get decided in the legislature, they get accepted as settled a lot more easily than they do if they're decided by the courts. Look at the continuing controversy over Roe v. Wade: if same-sex marriage advocates win in the courts, they can look forward to the same sort of decades-long acrimony which they can avoid by waiting for popular opinion to shift their direction.

 

[Huntster]

....Common sense is the equivalent of saying "because I'm right." ...

Why does it seem to work for you? ("I'm always right".....See sig line below)

Because you're an arrogant ass.

No, it does not. The future of procreation is a factor in my opinion, but not the primary factor.

So what do procreation have to do with same-sex marriage or heterosexual marriage?

Maybe you'll eventually figure it out. (But I doubt it).

That's your opinion

No, it is a fact that the issue at hand is same-sex marriage, not beastiality, polygamy or bigomy. Let's stick to the issue we're talking about and leave the red-herrings in the sea.

There are no red herrings. There are rotten fish in Denmark.

The issue is the definition of marriage.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

The issue is the definition of marriage.

Wrong. The issue is equal access to rights and privilages.

 

[Meadmaker]

Wrong. The issue is equal access to rights and privilages.

The issue is whether two people of the same sex should be allowed to call themselves "married", and have the government recognize them as the same, with whatever rights, privileges, and obligations go with that status.

There are various reasons why some people oppose or support that, but a lot of people seem to think their perspective is the only one that matters.

You, have focused on rights and privileges. Fine. But that's not the only thing that matters to all people.

For what it's worth, I wish more people would focus on restrictions and obligations of marriage, instead of rights and privileges.

 

[Meadmaker]

Nominated.

Thank you.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

The issue is whether two people of the same sex should be allowed to call themselves "married", and have the government recognize them as the same, with whatever rights, privileges, and obligations go with that status.

There are various reasons why some people oppose or support that, but a lot of people seem to think their perspective is the only one that matters.

You, have focused on rights and privileges. Fine. But that's not the only thing that matters to all people.

For what it's worth, I wish more people would focus on restrictions and obligations of marriage, instead of rights and privileges.

Some people, like you, are much more concerned about denying people these rights and privilages in the name of tradition. The rest of us actually care about liberty. Please, give me a list of these obligations of marriage.

 

[Meadmaker]

Please, give me a list of these obligations of marriage.

You're serious, aren't you?

To refrain from sexual intercourse with anyone other than your spouse.

To love your spouse.

To share your property with your spouse.

To care for your spouse if sick. (That's why those hospital visits are so important, ya know.)


You know, to have and to hold. For better or for worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health, and to keep yourself only to him/her, forsaking all others, as long as you both shall live.

What do you think? Those words were written by Hallmark?


Sadly, an awful lot of people also don't realize that those words matter, and their force in law has been diminished as a result. It is my opinion we are the worse for failing to teach our children, like you, that marriage is not a set of privileges.

If you care to, pick any "privilege" of marriage, and I will show you that it is probably an unrecognized responsibility, or, at least, it is correlated with a paired responsibility.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
The issue is the definition of marriage.

Wrong. The issue is equal access to rights and privilages.

Than why isn't the homosexual community seeking equal rights and privilages instead of "marriage"?

 

[Huntster]

......To refrain from sexual intercourse with anyone other than your spouse.

To love your spouse.

To share your property with your spouse.

To care for your spouse if sick. (That's why those hospital visits are so important, ya know.)

You know, to have and to hold. For better or for worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health, and to keep yourself only to him/her, forsaking all others, as long as you both shall live....

.........And to be open to procreation, and if you are blessed with children, to raise them properly, and care for them until you die, just like with your spouse:

That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two of them become one body.

 

[Earthborn]

To refrain from sexual intercourse with anyone other than your spouse.
To love your spouse.
To share your property with your spouse.
To care for your spouse if sick. (That's why those hospital visits are so important, ya know.)
You know, to have and to hold. For better or for worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health, and to keep yourself only to him/her, forsaking all others, as long as you both shall live.

I think the intented question is: "What obligations does the legal institute of civil marriage add to all that?"

Than why isn't the homosexual community seeking equal rights and privilages instead of "marriage"?

Apperently you have not been paying attention. They are seeking equal rights, priviledges (and responsibilities). It is just that 'equal rights' includes 'equal marriage rights'.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Sadly, an awful lot of people also don't realize that those words matter, and their force in law has been diminished as a result. It is my opinion we are the worse for failing to teach our children, like you, that marriage is not a set of privileges.

If you care to, pick any "privilege" of marriage, and I will show you that it is probably an unrecognized responsibility, or, at least, it is correlated with a paired responsibility.

So what's the point of preventing same-sex marriage? I figured allowing same-sex marriage would, at least, help promote marital values.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

You're serious, aren't you?

To refrain from sexual intercourse with anyone other than your spouse.

To love your spouse.

To share your property with your spouse.

To care for your spouse if sick. (That's why those hospital visits are so important, ya know.)


You know, to have and to hold. For better or for worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health, and to keep yourself only to him/her, forsaking all others, as long as you both shall live.

What do you think? Those words were written by Hallmark?


Sadly, an awful lot of people also don't realize that those words matter, and their force in law has been diminished as a result. It is my opinion we are the worse for failing to teach our children, like you, that marriage is not a set of privileges.

If you care to, pick any "privilege" of marriage, and I will show you that it is probably an unrecognized responsibility, or, at least, it is correlated with a paired responsibility.

Excuse me, how are any of these obligations unique to heterosexuals? Please explain, using pictures and diagrams where appropriate, why you think homosexuals cannot fullfil these (entirely vonuntary) obligations, and how you think that homosexual unions would jeopordize heterosexual unions.

 

[Scot C. Trypal]

Huntster, a couple pages back, asked what is it about these times that makes me less likely to be a drunk. It’s certainly not gay marriage threads; nothing in my life makes me feel more like a beer .

Dave, I think you answer your own quandary.

If you care to, pick any "privilege" of marriage, and I will show you that it is probably an unrecognized responsibility, or, at least, it is correlated with a paired responsibility.

It works the other way too. They look most like responsibilities if you aren’t in love, or don’t want them. That’s why marriage “rights” keeps even many heterosexual parents from marriage; they’d rather just live together and have sex without obligation.

They look like rights otherwise. Again, even the punishments of divorce on the breadwinner look like rights to him, because, they protect his family after all, even if they protect them from him. I simply don’t care a bit about the pain of a (nearly impossible) future me who’s broken his promises to my kids and spouse; it feels like a right, right now, to protect them from him (confusing, I know…).

You’re asking people to talk about their marriages as if they are in the midst of divorce, and, while not impossible, it ain’t easy.

 

[Meadmaker]

Excuse me, how are any of these obligations unique to heterosexuals?

They aren't. (Although, in a legal sense, until the state recognizes the unions, there are no associated legal obligations.)

You asked about the obligations of marriage. That's what they are. I'm sure I left out some of them.

 

[Meadmaker]

I simply don’t care a bit about the pain of a (nearly impossible) future me who’s broken his promises to my kids and spouse; it feels like a right, right now, to protect them from him (confusing, I know…).

Not at all. It makes perfect sense when recognized.

I'm just reacting to the persistent notion that marriage is some bag of goodies that married people get from the government, but it's only available if you are heterosexual. If thay's the case, I must be doing something wrong, because I never received my goodie bag.

Marriage is a commitment made. It consists of freedoms lost, not gained. The benefit of this arrangement to the one making the sacrifice is the security gained, because the partner gives up the same freedoms. Meanwhile, if you really want to be married, the sacrifices don't seem like sacrifices (i.e. it doesn't upset me that I can't sleep with other women or have sole title to my house). Meanwhile, if my beloved secretly harbors dreams of an amorous nature with someone not myself, the legal incentives to avoid such things might prevent her from acting upon that impulse, and I won't have to deal with that issue.

 

[Meadmaker]

I think the intented question is: "What obligations does the legal institute of civil marriage add to all that?"

Enforceability.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

They aren't. (Although, in a legal sense, until the state recognizes the unions, there are no associated legal obligations.)

You asked about the obligations of marriage. That's what they are. I'm sure I left out some of them.

Then, what basis is there for an objection to homosexual marriage that doesn't invoke imaginary friends or tradition?