toldailytopic: Same-sex marriage: for it, or against it?

[chrysostom]

Absolutely. You can't?
I believe he was saying the same thing I just said, only in a much more eloquent and lawyerly way.

so why did he mention outlawing condoms before he mentioned Sharia law?

are you worried about condoms?

 

[zippy2006]

Well, if it serves other purposes, what reason can you give to deny it to homosexual couples?

I've never said that marriage should be denied to homosexual couples based on the argument in question. That depends on the definition of marriage. The argument merely shows that heterosexual couples deserve more support from the government and a higher societal status. I explained all of this to you earlier in a visitor message. :idunno:

Here's the actual exchange:



All I pointed out is that procreative status is not a precondition acknowledged in any jurisdiction in the country. Far from begging the question, I pointed out that you are applying a standard to homosexuals which is not applied to anyone else despite the fact that it could be.

Then you've simply misunderstood the youtube video and its import. I figured you'd understood it. :idunno:

No, actually you said "Marriage presently only exists between a man and a women," which is most emphatically not true, unless you doubt that a number of jurisdictions have actually started issuing marriage licenses to homosexual couples.

I don't know the specifics; I know there is a federal DOMA and that no one in the U.S. has successfully and definitively incorporated gay marriage. So I'd say you're the one being disingenuous here.

Don't you know? 93.7% of all statistics are made-up on the spot. I'd very strongly doubt that anywhere near 90% of all couples are fertile given that a hefty chunk of the population of women have gone through menopause and therefore are no longer fertile. And that doesn't even being to take into account other causes of infertility. Or, for that matter, prepubescence.

You're reaching, those cases are nonsensical for your argument in the first place and I don't think any respectable percentage of new marriages fall into that category anyway.

I don't deny that homosexuals don't typically procreate together.

:squint: How serious is your denial?

But it's irrelevant to me. That's not what marriage is about. I don't know if you've ever read through a state's marriage statutes, but one of the things you'll notice is that there are lots of provisions that have nothing to do with children. These vary by state, but they include things like protection against spousal abandonment, legal implications of the union to medical treatment, and property rights, and finances, and inheritance, and all sorts of stuff that is totally applicable to anyone regardless of gender. Many of them probably actually make things simpler on the government. Denying this to any group has to be justified by some strong compelling reason. Nothing that anyone has suggested rises even close to this level.

You're ignoring the distinction that TH has been ignoring: contract vs government aid.

Yeah, pretty much. Welfare abuse is a big problem. Now, are you really going to tell me that you believe that in an ideal world, we would deny marriage certificates to all couples that can't or won't produce children biologically related to both parents? I'd like a straight answer on that question please.

No, I think that would be eugenics.

:e4e:

 

[danoman31]

Your confusion appears to run deeper than that. You're advancing religious rhetoric and I'm discussing how our secular Republic functions and should in relation to its expressed principles.

I'm not trying to argue anyone out of their faith, only suggesting we had that sort of thing once and it's a great deal of the reason we fled to a land where we could establish a secular republic. 30 Years War anyone? :nono:

Ahh so you're taking the view that mankind knows better how to manage its affairs. I see. Secularism seems to be working out just fine doesn't it. I advance "religious rhetoric" because it's GOD's creation not ours, I respect HIM and love HIM because of it, you mock HIM.

 

[zippy2006]

That's an empty sleeve waved with gusto.


Then stop making them. :think:


Then lucky for me I never claimed it does, because that would have been embarrassing, let me tell you.


I refer you to the previously noted means by which they can biologically produce children and the point made that in this they are not principally different from any other couple incapable absent assistance.


Do you imagine the child will produce itself? :squint:


And if the point is walking on water and not the evidence of your divine power you'd be right. :thumb:

So hopefully you understand what "procreation" means at this point.

Not really. For instance, they can't be a heterosexual couple. Else, it's a bit goofy. Many a heterosexual couple can't procreate, so they adopt or by some artificial means arrive at the obstructed desire, assuming they have it. In this principle a homosexual couple can similarly find their way to the mark. So what you're banking on is an arbitrary valuation of the ability of two people within a marriage contract to propagate. What you haven't begun to establish is why this distinction should control a blessed thing.

Here it is again with hope that 7 times is the deal-breaker: Marriage is more than a mere contract, it is government aid. Your argument has nothing to do with the issue; we are not arguing that homosexual couples should be precluded from drawing up a contract.

I understand that you believe that's what happened. I never advanced the notion that the only thing the government was doing was binding a contract. That isn't and hasn't been my argument.

It certainly has been, would you like to add to it now?

What's with the acoustics around here? What I've said is that the issue is no more one that should be put to a vote than whether Catholics should be allowed to marry.

What constitutes a votable concern?

Rather, it's the respect of each man's right to his own conscience that's at the heart of our secular Republic. I happen to think that's a swell idea. I don't want the Catholic Church to outlaw condoms or some peculiar Jewish or Islamic notion to find itself impressed upon me as law. There are, frankly, things that are your business and those which are only between the individual and his or her conscience. That this escapes you is double proof of the need for the very separation you mistakenly attribute in origin.

Then you'll have to hop off that anti-cigarette train and the anti-marijuana one and a number of others.

Said every man with a different idea of what constitutes that to the next fellow. Happy jihad. lain:

A man-made document--the Constitution--is an odd thing to put all of your weight on when we are talking about moral issues. Give me something more, give me the essence that it embodies, and then show me how to draw a hard line in the sand.

:e4e:

:e4e:

 

[Town Heretic]

Ahh so you're taking the view that mankind knows better how to manage its affairs. I see.

No. I'm taking the view that men differ on what God wants, that where those differences don't impinge on the right of the other our conscience and not the mob, should rule. Or are you fine with the idea of following Islamic law if the majority says so, because that's what you open yourself to when you move from a secular society into the realm of religious opinion establishing the right of law, instead of influencing it in value by way of the character it instills in its adherents.

Secularism seems to be working out just fine doesn't it.

Show me a state in the history of government that's done better than we have at expanding liberty and right. So yes, warts and all, we haven't managed the horror of that 30 Years War you might want to Google, tearing ourselves apart over distinctions in our understanding of the Holy.

I advance "religious rhetoric" because it's GOD's creation not ours,

That's not our difference. That's you telling yourself that your notion of God's creation should be the rule. And so says the next zealot and with no more authority. Wars have been fought over footnotes in that sort of system. Look to the horrors of Europe and our escape to found a different sort of society.

I respect HIM and love HIM because of it, you mock HIM.

I haven't mocked God any more than you've advanced reason. That's just a foolish vanity on your part confused as virtue, but given your love of the declarative in lieu of calm and deliberate rationality it's not particularly surprising. For my part, I'll withhold judgment on whether you love God or the sound of your own self righteous voice more. :think:

 

[zippy2006]

Secular Arguments Against Gay Marriage

Secular Arguments Against Gay Marriage

Here are a number of secular arguments against gay marriage for those interested:

1. A Secular Argument Against Gay Marriage

2. Judaism's Sexual Revolution: Why Judaism Rejected Homosexuality

3. What is Marriage? (Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy)

4. The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage

-zip
:e4e:

 

[Town Heretic]

So hopefully you understand what "procreation" means at this point.

Super. Now it's your turn: humility. lain:

Here it is again with hope that 7 times is the deal-breaker: Marriage is more than a mere contract, it is government aid.

Well, no. Marriage is a contract that has (as contracts will) certain advantages between the parties to it. That's more the rule than the exception you're wanting to fashion...By way of example, a corporation is formed by contract and has advantages in law because of it. It enjoys tax breaks and much of the authority of an actual person.

Your argument has nothing to do with the issue; we are not arguing that homosexual couples should be precluded from drawing up a contract.

I don't know how to break this to you gently, but my argument has everything to do with the issue and is advanced as a means to settle it.

What constitutes a votable concern?

Any number of things, but we don't vote on whether the law should be equitably applied, whether black men are entitled to the same rights as white men, by way of example. And you and I have the self same right to contract. So should the next guy--even if we don't particularly care for the fact he uses his contract to a purpose that offends our moral sensibilities, absent that compelling secular interest and argument that you've yet to advance.

Then you'll have to hop off that anti-cigarette train and the anti-marijuana one and a number of others.

No. That's your presumption, but that's all it is.

A man-made document--the Constitution--is an odd thing to put all of your weight on when we are talking about moral issues.

It would be. Luckily, we're not. You're trying to make a secular argument turn on your religious principle. We had that once before and, wisely, turned to a means less likely to provoke the sort of human catastrophe that was the 30 Years War, by way of example.


:e4e:

 

[Town Heretic]

Here are a number of secular arguments against gay marriage for those interested:

1. A Secular Argument Against Gay Marriage

From that bastion of secular, objective argument, The American Catholic.

All of three paragraphs in and the author intones,

"In the case of homosexual unions, however, any act that places them on the same level as traditional unions will necessarily send a message to everyone in society, including children, that it is a matter of indifference whether one marries a person of the same sex or of the opposite sex."​

Anyone care to play spot the presumption? lain: Beyond that, replace sex with race and welcome to 1955.

He also attempts the "every man at an oar" argument. Declining rates of population in the West require us to act. But as those reading along here should understand, homosexual unions needn't be childless by at least a couple of differing paths. To sum up in counter:

1. Traditional, heterosexual marriages are good and necessary for the survival of society through procreation.

Many heterosexual couples are producing no or one child in their reproductive lifetimes. Should we next legislate/mandate their conduct? If not it's an empty drum he's beating...though it is at any rate given the world wide population boom, the ability of couples to adopt and the previously mentioned ability of homosexual couples to procreate, if non traditionally. Of course all this assume that procreation should have a thing to do with the establishment of the right, which is utter nonsense and dogma disguised as something more and rational.

2. Traditional marriages survive and thrive when spouses are faithful to one another.

About half, on average, and of those that fail financial pressures and other factors are almost as frequently at the root.

3. Faithfulness is undermined by social indifference to the nature and purpose of sexual unions.

Dogma. This is no more a secular argument than my dog would be a cat if I gave called him that. It isn't a sexual union; it's a union with a sexual component. An important component, to be sure, but only that.

4. Homosexual “marriage” is/would be both a product of, and a contributor to, such indifference.

Declarative, unsupported nonsense, unless you begin with the assumption that marriage is about children, which is a particular dogmatic, religious view and nothing else.

5. Ergo, homosexual marriage harms traditional marriage.

Ergo, this "argument" isn't much more than a series of assumptions in support of Catholic dogma.

TBC... :squint:

:e4e:

 

[zippy2006]

From that bastion of secular, objective argument, The American Catholic.

Emotional bias without argument, a good start from TH, we'll see this kind of ad-hom approach throughout :thumb:

All of three paragraphs in and the author intones,

"In the case of homosexual unions, however, any act that places them on the same level as traditional unions will necessarily send a message to everyone in society, including children, that it is a matter of indifference whether one marries a person of the same sex or of the opposite sex."​

Anyone care to play spot the presumption?

Seems like a rather objective statement to me, but I suppose you're just looking for things to grumble about. Speaking of presumption:

lain: Beyond that, replace sex with race and welcome to 1955.

Question begging 101

He also attempts the "every man at an oar" argument. Declining rates of population in the West require us to act. But as those reading along here should understand, homosexual unions needn't be childless by at least a couple of differing paths.

Artificial paths at best, certainly not what you want your society's population to depend on.

1. Traditional, heterosexual marriages are good and necessary for the survival of society through procreation.

Many heterosexual couples are producing no or one child in their reproductive lifetimes. Should we next legislate/mandate their conduct? If not it's an empty drum he's beating...though it is at any rate given the world wide population boom, the ability of couples to adopt and the previously mentioned ability of homosexual couples to procreate, if non traditionally. Of course all this assume that procreation should have a thing to do with the establishment of the right, which is utter nonsense and dogma disguised as something more and rational.

The point isn't really contestable from a historical or realistic point of view. The world wide population boom is something you made up, it doesn't exist in the West where native populations are diminishing and newcomers are generally the reason the overall populations aren't as well. So the flourish is grand but it doesn't much address the point he made.

2. Traditional marriages survive and thrive when spouses are faithful to one another.

About half, on average, and of those that fail financial pressures and other factors are almost as frequently at the root.

Not reading carefully yet again, are we TH?

3. Faithfulness is undermined by social indifference to the nature and purpose of sexual unions.

Dogma. This is no more a secular argument than my dog would be a cat if I gave called him that. It isn't a sexual union; it's a union with a sexual component. An important component, to be sure, but only that.

:chuckle: It's always fun to see a man assert his own dogma by denouncing something else as dogma. The argument is from a societal point of view and you've failed to answer it. The Harvard paper elaborates on your misnomer by elaborating on the government's interest in sexual unions.

4. Homosexual “marriage” is/would be both a product of, and a contributor to, such indifference.

Declarative, unsupported nonsense, unless you begin with the assumption that marriage is about children, which is a particular dogmatic, religious view and nothing else.

Declarative, unsupported nonsense, unless you begin with the assumption that marriage is an arbitrary grouping of things, which is a particular dogmatic view and nothing else.

5. Ergo, homosexual marriage harms traditional marriage.

Ergo, this "argument" isn't much more than a series of assumptions in support of Catholic dogma.

Ergo, this "reply" isn't much more than reactionary temper tantrum thrown without a mind to even see the arguments, much less understand them. I doubt TH even read the article through.

TBC... :squint:

Wonderful

 

[Town Heretic]

Emotional bias without argument, a good start from TH, we'll see this kind of ad-hom approach throughout :thumb:

I was simply noting from the outset that the founder of that feast has a perspective and it isn't objective. Given what he advanced as argument, my suspicion seemed amply born out, your ongoing knack for the declarative notwithstanding.

Seems like a rather objective statement to me, but I suppose you're just looking for things to grumble about.

Then you aren't seeing it. The presumption (and one with an echo in the population portion) is that sexuality (at least so far as the homosexual is concerned) is a matter of choice.

Speaking of presumption:

Question begging 101

Another fine declaration without any attempt to demonstrate how the assertion is what you purport it to be. Or, in other words: beans.

Artificial paths at best, certainly not what you want your society's population to depend on.

Who said it has to, or should? Merely noting that the distinction between the two couples isn't much of one on this front.

The point isn't really contestable from a historical or realistic point of view.

Which point? The one anyone who can add understands or the other, the one he means to support which isn't nearly as iron clad?

The world wide population boom is something you made up,

No, it really isn't. From the U.S. Census on the subject:

"The world population increased from 3 billion in 1959 to 6 billion by 1999, a doubling that occurred over 40 years. The Census Bureau's latest projections imply that population growth will continue into the 21st century, although more slowly. The world population is projected to grow from 6 billion in 1999 to 9 billion by 2044, an increase of 50 percent that is expected to require 45 years."​

The argument is from a societal point of view and you've failed to answer it. The Harvard paper elaborates on your misnomer by elaborating on the government's interest in sexual unions.

Given you thought this "argument" was worth considering you'll forgive me if I don't credit the next one as something to shiver about pre-consideration. As for the first part, I'm happy to let my answer stand review.

Declarative, unsupported nonsense, unless you begin with the assumption that marriage is an arbitrary grouping of things, which is a particular dogmatic view and nothing else.

It sounded good at the outset, but then you spiraled into the earth with the baseless assertion that I've held any position other than the unassailable point: marriage remains a contract of a very specific nature and equity demands a better than arbitrary denial of the right. His attempt to transform Catholic declaration into objective fact without mechanism, by force of assertion alone isn't much of an argument.

Ergo, this "reply" isn't much more than reactionary temper tantrum thrown without a mind to even see the arguments, much less understand them.

Silly bit of goofery, given I'm rarely out of temper and almost never with an honest, if under thought and errant, opinion. Doesn't mean I won't pants someone attempting to foist it off on me.

:e4e:

 

[zippy2006]

I was simply noting from the outset that the founder of that feast has a perspective and it isn't objective. Given what he advanced as argument, my suspicion seemed amply born out, your ongoing knack for the declarative notwithstanding.

Right, Catholics are incapable of objectivity and you embody it lain:

Then you aren't seeing it. The presumption (and one with an echo in the population portion) is that sexuality (at least so far as the homosexual is concerned) is a matter of choice.

It is certainly partially due to "nurture," which is why his point is rather valid.

Another fine declaration without any attempt to demonstrate how the assertion is what you purport it to be. Or, in other words: beans.

Because you always give thorough demonstration with your declarations? :chuckle:

Comparing a position opposing homosexuality to racists begs the question quite clearly, I don't think elaboration is required.

Which point? The one anyone who can add understands or the other, the one he means to support which isn't nearly as iron clad?

The one he made.

No, it really isn't. From the U.S. Census on the subject:

"The world population increased from 3 billion in 1959 to 6 billion by 1999, a doubling that occurred over 40 years. The Census Bureau's latest projections imply that population growth will continue into the 21st century, although more slowly. The world population is projected to grow from 6 billion in 1999 to 9 billion by 2044, an increase of 50 percent that is expected to require 45 years."​

Here is some newer data demonstrating my point about the Western world in comparison to the rest. Here is information on birth rates. It turns out that the population problem in the developed countries is not due to high birth rates, but to high life expectancy. We're simply re-adjusting to a new equillibrium, birth rates are actually relatively low.

Given you thought this "argument" was worth considering you'll forgive me if I don't credit the next one as something to shiver about pre-consideration. As for the first part, I'm happy to let my answer stand review.

Then we're both happy.

It sounded good at the outset, but then you spiraled into the earth with the baseless assertion that I've held any position other than the unassailable point: marriage remains a contract of a very specific nature and equity demands a better than arbitrary denial of the right. His attempt to transform Catholic declaration into objective fact without mechanism, by force of assertion alone isn't much of an argument.

Clearly he disagrees with with that definition, along with about everyone else. :idunno:

Silly bit of goofery, given I'm rarely out of temper and almost never with an honest, if under thought and errant, opinion. Doesn't mean I won't pants someone attempting to foist it off on me.

Then your own medicine should taste fine. :idunno: Trying to deny that there is a rational secular argument against homosexual marriage is like trying to paint the sky orange, however much you disagree with the argument.

:e4e:

:e4e:

 

[danoman31]

No. I'm taking the view that men differ on what God wants, that where those differences don't impinge on the right of the other our conscience and not the mob, should rule. Or are you fine with the idea of following Islamic law if the majority says so, because that's what you open yourself to when you move from a secular society into the realm of religious opinion establishing the right of law, instead of influencing it in value by way of the character it instills in its adherents.


Show me a state in the history of government that's done better than we have at expanding liberty and right. So yes, warts and all, we haven't managed the horror of that 30 Years War you might want to Google, tearing ourselves apart over distinctions in our understanding of the Holy.


That's not our difference. That's you telling yourself that your notion of God's creation should be the rule. And so says the next zealot and with no more authority. Wars have been fought over footnotes in that sort of system. Look to the horrors of Europe and our escape to found a different sort of society.


I haven't mocked God any more than you've advanced reason. That's just a foolish vanity on your part confused as virtue, but given your love of the declarative in lieu of calm and deliberate rationality it's not particularly surprising. For my part, I'll withhold judgment on whether you love God or the sound of your own self righteous voice more. :think:

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the French try using their conscience to guide them. If I recall correctly that effort resulted in a revolution. Following one's conscience would work great if he knew who gave him his conscience in the first place.

In just over 200 years we've managed to follow the path of failure other gov'ts have made. We may not be at the end of that path. We are lucky enough to have a gov't that allows us to correct our errors. I have had the oppurtunity to experince other forms of gov't, and yes I agree ours is the best yet, but currently we are on the way to screwing up a good thing. Isn't ironic that Greece is the home of democracy and it's now begging the world for help.

Advancing rhetoric is not our difference? I beg to differ. (pardon the pun). A good father expects his child to follow his rules, not because a good father wants to wield authority and feel powerful, but because he loves his child and hopes his child will see the wisdom his father has. Wars are fought because we ignore our FATHERS wisdom. You and men like you believe you are wise. GOD will return to show us how foolish you are. Believe and trust HIM and you will be spared HIS wrath.
Advanced reason? C'mon, there you go mocking again. So my belief in GOD needs be based in reason. Got news for ya, IT IS!!! Know how I know this? HE gave me a brain (small as it may be compared to yours' I'll admit) to reason with. I used it and came to the conclusion that HE'S right, about everything. Gotta go with the GUY with the plan. I think I only sound self righteous to you and those like you. I'll have to ask GOD if I'm overstepping my bounds.
In anycase I don't really mean to sound confrontational though thats exactly what I'm doing. It's just that I've been reading threads on TOL for soo long and I have followed your exploits from the beginning. I actually like you, you're fun and entertaining as well as articulate. Your logic on the otherhand.... well I won't go there, I want us to be friends.
Trust the LORD and join the party it's way more fun than it looks!

 

[zippy2006]

Super. Now it's your turn: humility. lain:

Aye :e4e:

Here it is again with hope that 7 times is the deal-breaker: Marriage is more than a mere contract, it is government aid.

Well, no. Marriage is a contract that has (as contracts will) certain advantages between the parties to it. That's more the rule than the exception you're wanting to fashion...By way of example, a corporation is formed by contract and has advantages in law because of it. It enjoys tax breaks and much of the authority of an actual person.

Okay :idunno: I agree it is more the rule than the exception that I am fashioning

I don't know how to break this to you gently, but my argument has everything to do with the issue and is advanced as a means to settle it.

I'm afraid you're mistaken on a number of fronts. Noting that my argument from government aid is sound already marginalizes your position. Heterosexual couples are worth more to society than homosexual couples. That's a point you won't unmake that serves as a basis for "inequity" (as you like to call it) from the get-go.

Any number of things, but we don't vote on whether the law should be equitably applied, whether black men are entitled to the same rights as white men, by way of example.

In fact we do and did, both in the making of the Constitution and in the decision to go to war over it. But that isn't a point I'm overly concerned with.

And you and I have the self same right to contract. So should the next guy--even if we don't particularly care for the fact he uses his contract to a purpose that offends our moral sensibilities, absent that compelling secular interest and argument that you've yet to advance.

1. The government has objective interest in traditional marriage as a means to a healthy society. I've made this point in part and it is made much more thoroughly elsewhere. It does not deny the homosexuals contract, it denies them marriage, which is more than contract via the arguments I speak of.

2. Realistically, morality and law are nothing but a societal vote

No. That's your presumption, but that's all it is.


It would be. Luckily, we're not. You're trying to make a secular argument turn on your religious principle. We had that once before and, wisely, turned to a means less likely to provoke the sort of human catastrophe that was the 30 Years War, by way of example.

You've again ignored a giant point in my reply. I think the onus is on you to demonstrate that we cannot vote homosexual marriage out in good conscience, that 2 above is false. I will pose my question again:

A man-made document--the Constitution--is an odd thing to put all of your weight on when we are talking about moral issues. Give me something more, give me the essence that it embodies, and then show me how to draw a hard line in the sand.​

Religion:

Here is my religious argument, much to Rex's and other's dismay , phrased more precisely:

1. Homosexuality is a sin, it is therefore destructive to the individual
2. Societal acceptance and elevation of this sin to "normal," and on par with marriage is inevitably destructive to the society and those within it
3. Christians cannot vote a sin that will destroy souls and society into public practice with a good conscience

Thoughts? On a whim I would say that you believe homosexuality is a sin somewhat dogmatically, that you don't argue against it secularly because you don't see anything objectively and rationally wrong with the thing in itself, even if you claim that you disagree for other reasons on the surface. Could you argue with an atheist against homosexuality in a non-dogmatic way? :think:

:e4e:

:e4e:

 

[kmoney]

Here are a number of secular arguments against gay marriage for those interested:

1. A Secular Argument Against Gay Marriage

2. Judaism's Sexual Revolution: Why Judaism Rejected Homosexuality

3. What is Marriage? (Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy)

4. The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage

-zip
:e4e:

I read most of the 1st and 4th links.

From the first link:

1. Traditional, heterosexual marriages are good and necessary for the survival of society through procreation.

2. Traditional marriages survive and thrive when spouses are faithful to one another.

3. Faithfulness is undermined by social indifference to the nature and purpose of sexual unions.

4. Homosexual “marriage” is/would be both a product of, and a contributor to, such indifference.

5. Ergo, homosexual marriage harms traditional marriage.​

I do not see how those points are connected. :idunno:

#1 is a given for the most part. Without procreation, a society dies out.

#2 is pretty good too. Marriages are best when the spouses stay true to each other.

#3 is where he loses me. I assume that the purpose in mind is procreation....so is he saying that the reason to be faithful is because you are supporting children? And without children there is no need to be faithful?

 

[kmoney]

From zippy's 4th link which I found to be more compelling than the 1st, what I think is the pivotal paragraph.....

...When a state recognizes a marriage, it bestows upon the couple certain benefits which are costly to both the state and other individuals. Collecting a deceased spouse’s social security, claiming an extra tax exemption for a spouse, and having the right to be covered under a spouse’s health insurance policy are just a few examples of the costly benefits associated with marriage. In a sense, a married couple receives a subsidy. Why? Because a marriage between two unrelated heterosexuals is likely to result in a family with children, and propagation of society is a compelling state interest. For this reason, states have, in varying degrees, restricted from marriage couples unlikely to produce children.​

2 questions.

Who agrees that marriage benefits are meant to be a subsidy for producing children?


And if you do, is that subsidy targeted at only biological children?

 

[zippy2006]

I read most of the 1st and 4th links.

From the first link:

1. Traditional, heterosexual marriages are good and necessary for the survival of society through procreation.

2. Traditional marriages survive and thrive when spouses are faithful to one another.

3. Faithfulness is undermined by social indifference to the nature and purpose of sexual unions.

4. Homosexual “marriage” is/would be both a product of, and a contributor to, such indifference.

5. Ergo, homosexual marriage harms traditional marriage.​

I do not see how those points are connected. :idunno:

#1 is a given for the most part. Without procreation, a society dies out.

#2 is pretty good too. Marriages are best when the spouses stay true to each other.

#3 is where he loses me. I assume that the purpose in mind is procreation....so is he saying that the reason to be faithful is because you are supporting children? And without children there is no need to be faithful?

He is speaking of societal and moral norms. Traditional marriage acts as a moral and societal norm that encourages citizens to act responsibly in respecting and honoring the nature and purpose of sexual unions. Making marriage arbitrary--into a sort of contract as TH sees it--leads to "social indifference to the nature and purpose of sexual unions." #3 fleshes this point out quite a bit more.

Now usher in homosexual "marriage" or polygymous "marriage" and the importance of that union is less well defined because the union itself is less well-defined, it is becoming arbitrary. It leads toward the view that marriage is more "me" based rather than "them" (children and spouse) based. More pleasure, less responsibility. I believe that is what he is saying, though I agree the point is rather vague. :chuckle:

Edit: I also think there is an undeniable link between marriage and children/procreation. As a society we make that connection quite clearly. It is fair game to joke or ask a married couple about when they will have kids, but it isn't fair game to ask an unmarried couple the question. We also make the association the other way: we find it odd when a couple has a child without marrying, and it is quite normal for a married couple to have a child, it is "right." That sort of healthy societal mindset with regard to marriage is what he is referring to. Homosexual "marriage" destroys the correlation and changes the societal view of the institution. It undoes the intuitive scenarios I just noted and divorces(!) the act of procreation from marriage itself.

 

[zippy2006]

From zippy's 4th link which I found to be more compelling than the 1st, what I think is the pivotal paragraph.....

...When a state recognizes a marriage, it bestows upon the couple certain benefits which are costly to both the state and other individuals. Collecting a deceased spouse’s social security, claiming an extra tax exemption for a spouse, and having the right to be covered under a spouse’s health insurance policy are just a few examples of the costly benefits associated with marriage. In a sense, a married couple receives a subsidy. Why? Because a marriage between two unrelated heterosexuals is likely to result in a family with children, and propagation of society is a compelling state interest. For this reason, states have, in varying degrees, restricted from marriage couples unlikely to produce children.​

2 questions.

Who agrees that marriage benefits are meant to be a subsidy for producing children?


And if you do, is that subsidy targeted at only biological children?

I think this has been a main point all along. I think it is clear that the state encourages marriage, both through benefits as well as a 'high' societal view of the institution (which is what I think 1 was getting at).

I think a yes to your first question answers your second. If the subsidy is for producing children, not raising them, then the question is answered. The heterosexual couple provides a service to society that the homosexual couple simply cannot. See the third article for answers to questions about heterosexual infertility, I haven't finished all of the articles but I did read much of that one.

:e4e:

 

[Town Heretic]

I'm afraid you're mistaken on a number of fronts.

I'm afraid of rattlesnakes...but I can show you a rattlesnake.

Noting that my argument from government aid is sound

Which isn't what noting a previously uncontested recognition of tax breaks does...

already marginalizes your position.

Well, no. No, it doesn't. Here's a novel idea for you: demonstrate how.

Heterosexual couples are worth more to society than homosexual couples.

Not come fashion week. lain: Else, society once valued white men over any other and gave them perks in violation of the equitable principle that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator, etc. Seem like a good idea to you?

That's a point you won't unmake that serves as a basis for "inequity" (as you like to call it) from the get-go.

Not it at all really. Supra and prior.

In fact we do and did,

All right then, to make a point I shouldn't have to: no. The tense I used was present. We don't.

1. The government has objective interest in traditional marriage as a means to a healthy society.

The government has a fundamental obligation to guarantee equal rights to its citizens.

It does not deny the homosexuals contract, it denies them marriage, which is more than contract via the arguments I speak of.

Separate but not entirely equal?

It actually does and doesn't, depending on the jurisdiction. Surprised to see you still making that mistake. I'm reasonably sure you've already been corrected on the point. And given the marriage contract needn't be and isn't inherently more than a specialized contract, depending on the religious views of the parties, your arguments fails even in that attempt.

2. Realistically, morality and law are nothing but a societal vote

A matter of dispute. "We hold these truths to be self evident..." and all. They are or they aren't. I don't believe the former is something decided by a show of hands.

You've again ignored a giant point in my reply.

Didn't.

I think the onus is on you to demonstrate that we cannot vote homosexual marriage out in good conscience,

Would you say the same thing about Catholics? My answer to the point you think was ignored was in the question that you, well, ignored.

Religion:

Here is my religious argument,

I have one. The fellow down the street has one. And if his says that Catholics shouldn't be allowed to vote or live in Protestant neighborhoods or marry because Protestant values are of greater importance to the nation I'll oppose the attempt in the spirit of equity under law.

Thoughts? On a whim I would say that you believe homosexuality is a sin somewhat dogmatically, that you don't argue against it secularly because you don't see anything objectively and rationally wrong with the thing in itself, even if you claim that you disagree for other reasons on the surface.

Actually I tend to speak my mind and say what I mean. I don't see the advantage or reason in doing otherwise. There's simply no good reason to undermine the principle that serves to keep our social compact from falling into the hands of a mob mentality.

Could you argue with an atheist against homosexuality in a non-dogmatic way? :think:

Argue against someone's sexual preference? Not rationally. Now how a person chooses to express that preference is another matter, whether homo or hetero.

To summarize: it isn't a matter of favoring homosexuality or the notion of homosexual marriage; rather, I'm against the denial of right absent reasoned justification. This reminds me of how a person could be denied the right to marry someone of another race not too terribly long ago because it was considered a part of the social interest. Nonsense then and nonsense now.

:e4e:

 

[Lev Lafayette]

I'm for marriage equality.

The legal existence of same-sex marriage does not prevent different-sex marriages. So if you're orientation is towards the latter, then you can still undertake it. If you don't like same-sex marriages, don't have one.

The legal existence of same-sex marriages does not prohibit particular religious faiths from not carrying out such ceremonies. If your faith, no matte what it, does not want to conduct same-sex marriages then don't.

A legal prohibition however does prevent religious faiths from carrying out such ceremonies. It does prevent, in my country, groups like the Quakers, the Unitarian-Universalists, a number of Buddhists, various pagan celebrants, and numerous Uniting Church ministers (not to mention a few Catholics) from conducting same-sex marriages.

So if you respect the right of people to choose their own religion and you respect the right to people to control their own body this really shouldn't be a difficult issue.

 

[rexlunae]

I've never said that marriage should be denied to homosexual couples based on the argument in question. That depends on the definition of marriage. The argument merely shows that heterosexual couples deserve more support from the government and a higher societal status. I explained all of this to you earlier in a visitor message. :idunno:

You said that gay marriage is "a step toward making the institution arbitrary and meaningless", which doesn't sound like an appeal to the definition of marriage.

Then you've simply misunderstood the youtube video and its import. I figured you'd understood it. :idunno:

I completely understood the video, and pointed out that the distinction is entirely imaginary. Saying that all heterosexual couples can procreate "in principle" is not a statement of any reality. You could have said that women weren't fit to do the same work as men "in principle", and it wouldn't have been any more a statement of reality.

I don't know the specifics; I know there is a federal DOMA and that no one in the U.S. has successfully and definitively incorporated gay marriage. So I'd say you're the one being disingenuous here.

Ok. Then lets get the facts straight first. First of all, the DOMA was passed during the Clinton administration because it became obvious that homosexuals were going to start gaining civil rights, such as equal access to marriage. It only impacts the federal government, and it attempted to seize from the states the right to define and regulate marriage, probably running afoul of both the Tenth and the Fourteenth amendments. I would be shocked if it were not thrown out when it gets to court. It does not even attempt to ban gay marriage in general. It just bans the federal government from acknowledging it.

Currently, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, and New Hampshire permit gay marriage, as does the District of Columbia. California permitted gay marriage for a while before Prop 8 passed, and once the courts finish throwing out Prop 8, ironically on the basis of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution, they will do so again, and the marriages certified during the period where they were legal are still considered valid. So, gay marriage is already here in this country, and it's not going anywhere.

Edit: Here's a more complete list: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011/0...t-issue-marriage-licenses-to-same-sex-couples

You're reaching, those cases are nonsensical for your argument in the first place

Well, no, not if you understand my argument, which is simply that you cannot withhold marriage rights from any group of people on the basis of a standard which is not applied to to anyone else without running afoul of the standards of equal treatment before the law enacted in our Constitution. Your fertility "in principle" is an appeal to imagination, not reality.

and I don't think any respectable percentage of new marriages fall into that category anyway.

Then you're plain wrong, unless you stretch what you mean by "respectable percentage", which is admittedly quite unclear. Any woman who marries after menopause, usually no later than their early 50's, fits the description. It's even a fairly easy thing to check.

:squint: How serious is your denial?

I'm totally cereal.

You're ignoring the distinction that TH has been ignoring: contract vs government aid.

I've watched you try to carve out a case with the distinction, but it's irrelevant to the Fourteenth Amendment in both letter and spirit. You seem to be under the impression that the fact that I don't accept your distinction means that I don't understand it. I do. You just don't seem to understand why it doesn't matter as several here, including TH, have tried to explain.

No, I think that would be eugenics.

By definition it can't be, since we're referring to infertile couples, and eugenics is about engineered reproduction. But it seems like you've abandoned the standard that you seem to think is so important where it regards homosexuals. Kinda forces me to suspect that your position is determined by something other than the argument you're trying to present as the reason...though you've all but admitted it in your "Religion" asides.