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

[Town Heretic]

I asked you quite a long time ago, quite a few times, to justify why it is not. You were silent.

Don't recall you doing that, but you should read the founders. Start with Jefferson...or the preamble. It's a foundational assertion/assumption to be sure, but nothing like a whim. That trivializes a thoughtful posit.

That is in no way an argument.

It wasn't presented as such, but as a summary of your admission a post ago or so, the one that made substantive debate a bit pointless. You stated you believed fundamental right should be reduced to a popularity contest and that on this foundation you'd enforce your religious beliefs...populist fiat. And I said okay, that's just a context that sets us against one another and can't be bridged.

I've specifically asked for the objective line you claim to be capable of drawing, and you've shied away from that demonstration.

I remember the sentence. It literally didn't make sense to me as written. I had an answer where I said as much, but given I didn't need to worry after it to make and maintain my point I let that go.

Probably you understand that you are not up to the task and that the "objectiveness" you proclaim simply isn't there.

I understand you need to resize your pants.

But whatever it is, it would be quite nice if you stopped with the bare assertions and actually produced some substance in favor of your position.

I've noted and set out my part with detail. Begin with right and equality/equity before the law. Apply it and you tend to run discriminatory practices to ground. That would include the ones you favor for reasons that don't stand scrutiny.

By way of example, your "homosexual couples can't reproduce" is complete nonsense. They can and do. There are some fairly well publicized examples. Now their method isn't traditional, but neither is the path for people with serious fertility issues. And they can adopt. Using both biological process and that adoption they can create a family unit and rear children to be productive members of society, paralleling the heterosexual couple except within the context of a particular sort of dogmatic constraint.


:e4e:

 

[zippy2006]

Don't recall you doing that, but you should read the founders. Start with Jefferson...or the preamble. It's a foundational assertion/assumption to be sure, but nothing like a whim. That trivializes a thoughtful posit.


It wasn't presented as such, but as a summary of your admission a post ago or so, the one that made substantive debate a bit pointless. You stated you believed fundamental right should be reduced to a popularity contest and that on this foundation you'd enforce your religious beliefs...populist fiat. And I said okay, that's just a context that sets us against one another and can't be bridged.


I remember the sentence. It literally didn't make sense to me as written. I had an answer where I said as much, but given I didn't need to worry after it to make and maintain my point I let that go.

Here it is if you actually want to answer it:

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.

My point is that a "fundamental right" is not intuitive, and is not provable, and is therefore societally determined by nothing other than a vote. To the contrary you assert.

I've noted and set out my part with detail. Begin with right and equality/equity before the law.

How are rights determined, how is equality determined, how is law determined?

By way of example, your "homosexual couples can't reproduce" is complete nonsense. They can and do. There are some fairly well publicized examples. Now their method isn't traditional, but neither is the path for people with serious fertility issues. And they can adopt. Using both biological process and that adoption they can create a family unit and rear children to be productive members of society, paralleling the heterosexual couple except within the context of a particular sort of dogmatic constraint.

This is nonsense and I'm really done addressing it. Homosexual couples cannot reproduce, it doesn't work. You need a man and a woman (or parts from a man and a woman) in order to reproduce.

:e4e:

:e4e:

 

[Uberpod1]

\



This is nonsense and I'm really done addressing it. Homosexual couples cannot reproduce, it doesn't work. You need a man and a woman (or parts from a man and a woman) in order to reproduce.



:e4e:

Too bad you are frustrated. Because there is some light summer reading, you could peruse: Gay Reproduction could be more moral than Straight Reproduction http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=67547

 

[Town Heretic]

Here it is if you actually want to answer it:

I only just did. It's peculiar to hear you arguing for the imposition of a moral absolute by advancing a relativist's position.

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

First mistake. I'm talking about the law and how it functions and how it should given the principles in play. You're attempting to make the distinctions here based on your particular moral view. And given what you're attempting and the way you justify it (supra and prior)...well, that's a bit more than odd.

Give me something more, give me the essence that it embodies, and then show me how to draw a hard line in the sand.

There's the sentence. Do you mean by "it" the Constitution? It both announces and defines the means and ideas embodied. If you mean something else, what else?

My point is that a "fundamental right" is not intuitive, and is not provable, and is therefore societally determined by nothing other than a vote.

Actually, I think it is. I'll note why in a moment.

How are rights determined, how is equality determined, how is law determined?

It's a context with a great deal of argument behind it. That's why I referred you to Jefferson. There's a voluminous amount of public thinking on natural right. Read Locke for one. The arguments would take a great deal more time and space than is practical here.

To short hand one approach: I am born with as much objectively demonstrable right to myself in thought and conduct as any other man. Your foundation denies that.

Homosexual couples cannot reproduce, it doesn't work.

This is another of your convenient literalisms. In fact, homosexual couples have the means to reproduce using surrogates, just as some heterosexual couples do. They can produce stable family units and the same contributions that are recognized and rewarded among heterosexual couples.

Else, it's a bit like arguing that black men shouldn't be allowed the same rights because they aren't capable of being white. That's not the point. Neither is sexual reproduction as you set out the parameters in that neat, dogmatic circle of yours.

:e4e:

 

[zippy2006]

I only just did. It's peculiar to hear you arguing for the imposition of a moral absolute by advancing a relativist's position.

Rather, I note the difference between my own moral absolute (the moral law as I understand it) and societal law. What is truly odd is that you attempt to institute a moral system without reference to the absolute morality you yourself believe in, while at the same time failing to see that reference everywhere but our topic.

First mistake. I'm talking about the law and how it functions and how it should given the principles in play. You're attempting to make the distinctions here based on your particular moral view. And given what you're attempting and the way you justify it (supra and prior)...well, that's a bit more than odd.

Is the law related to morality TH?

Give me something more, give me the essence that it embodies, and then show me how to draw a hard line in the sand.

There's the sentence. Do you mean by "it" the Constitution?

Yes.

It both announces and defines the means and ideas embodied.

What are those ideas? Why is one thing votable and another not?

It's a context with a great deal of argument behind it. That's why I referred you to Jefferson. There's a voluminous amount of public thinking on natural right. Read Locke for one. The arguments would take a great deal more time and space than is practical here.

To short hand one approach: I am born with as much objectively demonstrable right to myself in thought and conduct as any other man. Your foundation denies that.

1. My foundation does not deny that, you are misrepresenting

2. That is not intuitive, historical, or accepted everywhere. Why?


The fact is, these men included a rather subtle but important phrase in "created." We are equal under God, we are created equal. It is a referral to religion from the start. Aristotle proves well enough that we aren't equal in any empirical way. Locke has been addressed and defeated by any number of arguments. There is simply no grounding for equality outside religion, just as there is no grounding for morality and law apart from God. It doesn't interest me that the secularists conceive of another religious idea as their own, for they once again have no grounding for that idea.

:e4e:

 

[rexlunae]

In fact it is. Take a survey of construction crews, note the giant difference between men and women working, and then note that the reason we don't see this as discrimination against women is because men are physically stronger than women in principle.

You're over-generalizing again, and calling the generalization a principle, which it's not. Smart construction crews put people to work according to their abilities, not their gender. That often leads men to do certain types of work, and women others, but there can be any number of exceptions to that weak rule.

Heterosexuals can reproduce, homosexuals cannot. That is a generalization that holds true (in general) whether you admit it or not.

And that continues to be irrelevant for the reasons I've already given. Here they are again, for easy reference:

1. Even though they cannot reproduce together, homosexuals can and do raise children together with their life partners. Almost all of the legal provisions conferred by marriage apply to these situations just as well as they do to heterosexual couples.

2. Marriage is not exclusively about procreation. I was at a wedding yesterday, and I can say that even the Bible readings had very little to do with children and had everything to do with the couple. Marriage is substantially, if not primarily, a bonding of two individuals. The law protects this union in its own right whether or not there are any children involved, and homosexuals have every right to expect that the state will not discriminate against them in offering that benefit.

At best your contestation that it is an abstract statement is a metaphysical argument rather than anything else, but the empirical evidence simply doesn't support your view.

You're not reading me correctly. I did not suggest that your fertility "in principle" is an abstract statement. I pointed out that it does not refer to any reality at all, physical or abstract. As for the empirical evidence, I don't think there's any dispute between us about the physical reality, there's just you trying to reverse-engineer a principle where it doesn't exist, and where none is actually possible in order to cover the real objection, which is religious in nature and therefore impermissible.

The end of this addresses your actual counter argument.

If only it would.

Okay :thumb:

And, if you haven't heard, since I last posted, New York joined the club. The times, they are a changing...

So your only argument is that heterosexual couples should be tested for fertility.

If you're going to make fertility a requirement for marriage, yes. But then, there's a more fundamental objection that that isn't actually a stated requirement in law for any state. It's simply not the focus of the law, which is understandable if you have any idea what marriage really fundamentally is. My actual point--and this is a genuine principle, as opposed to the tap-dancing you've been doing--is that you can't apply that standard to some and not others. And you certainly can't pretend that that standard is being applied uniformly when it simply isn't applied at all, or even mentioned, as is clear from the published laws of any state you care to name. And yes, that is an implicit challenge (hereby made explicit) to name a state that does require some expectation of fertility if you want to continue to disagree with me on point.

The problem is not eugenics per say, but it falls under the same category.

What category is that? Certainly, eugenics violates a person's reproductive rights. But infertile couples can't reproduce, so that can't be the issue. It violates their right to marry a person of their choosing? That might be closer to the mark, but I suspect you'll try to avoid reaching that conclusion.

Testing heterosexual couples for such a thing would undeniably lead to invasions of privacy, and in the broader context of my argument those couples are fulfilling a societal service with their marriage. Such testing would not be feasible or just for the government to carry out. There is a section on this in the third article I gave.

What if we simply made couples sign an affidavit saying that they have no reason to believe that they would have any fertility problems? Certainly, there's no invasion of privacy there. The only way people would get in trouble is if they lied and somehow that was uncovered later. And perhaps we could set a deadline for having children, such that the couple must conceive within a certain number of years, or be forced to divorce. That way, we could avoid all those non-child-bearing couples collecting those government subsidies you're so worried about.

Of course, the only way to truly avoid an invasion of privacy is for the government to stop discriminating between homosexual and heterosexual couples.
:e4e:

 

[rexlunae]

Your criticisms are in general far too narrow-minded. All you are seeing are specific incentives while failing to see the overall cultural tendencies being promoted.

And yet, if I answer enough of your specific cases, it will make the generalization look very hollow. And in this case, the leading example was absolutely terrible for making the intended point. If you want to acknowledge that and go on defending the others, fine, but I've taken a post (and now another) to point out the error, and the least you could do if you're going to respond at all is provide me with satisfaction on point.

The fact that civil marriage is not solely for procreation is part of that fact.

I raised an objection to one out of three examples given in the paragraph k-mo was quoting in making a point to you. Here it is again:

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.

As for the extra tax exemption and the insurance issue, they're little more than an acknowledgement that a stay-at-home parent may be dependent financially on the primary breadwinner's salary. And it is just as applicable to a gay couple as a straight couple.

You teach a man to be productive at work by instilling a sense of productivity, not by giving a number of specific incentives for him for everything he does.

I'm not sure how you do the former without doing also the later.

You are looking at something which exists to promote that general productivity and wondering why it seems to fail as a perfectly legitimate specific incentive...:idunno: The third article gets to the heart of this imo.

I'm doing no more or less than pointing out that an example given as a part of the case was exceptionally poor. Acknowledge, counter, or drop.

 

[rexlunae]

The fact is, these men included a rather subtle but important phrase in "created." We are equal under God, we are created equal. It is a referral to religion from the start.

I think you read far too much into that one word. It's a principle, not a statement of fact. It doesn't pay to be too literal-minded about the word choice.

There is simply no grounding for equality outside religion, just as there is no grounding for morality and law apart from God.

Mere unsupported declaration.

It doesn't interest me that the secularists conceive of another religious idea as their own, for they once again have no grounding for that idea.

You propose that we should all be ruled by religious principles? If so, whose? And if not, what do you suppose the alternative is?

 

[Town Heretic]

...Is the law related to morality TH?

Frequently, but not inescapably. Is it immoral to spit on a sidewalk? Our moral sensibility informs us, but that same sensibility differs in many and important ways from man to man and religious view to religious view. Our law is predicated upon the notion that no man is higher than any other, that we deserve the same inherent respect that we're born to, as I noted in my prior. The law's duty is to preserve the balance between our right to personal autonomy and warrantless interference with the next fellow's.

Re: the Constitution

What are those ideas? Why is one thing votable and another not?

Consider this portion of our Founders' mission statement:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men..."​

There's the statement of intent, of the preservation of inherent equality and a reflection of the law's attempt to preserve equity.

1. My foundation does not deny that, you are misrepresenting

Only if you aren't reading yourself clearly.

...I think the onus is on you to demonstrate that we cannot vote homosexual marriage out...

I responded: Would you say the same thing about Catholics?

...Yes I would...

That's mob rule, inequality on demand.

2. That is not intuitive,

Like slavery you mean? That appears to have been intuitive. lain: But, more seriously, you mean it isn't intuitive to some. It was, in fact, intuited by more than one or two.

historical,

Untrue. We're just the latest and most advanced model. The ideas have been around.

or accepted everywhere.

So? Again with the notion that right is a show of hands and truth established by popularity? You're still arguing against yourself then.

Why?

Because men differ, both in valuation and in the quality of their thinking.

The fact is, these men included a rather subtle but important phrase in "created." We are equal under God, we are created equal. It is a referral to religion from the start.

Though Jefferson's notion of that God was fairly different from your own, the rhetorical use is the establishment of absolute right, the common agreement in a document that preserves the right to difference without the ideological enslavement of our European cousins or the war of dots and dashes and exegesis that followed them.

Aristotle proves well enough that we aren't equal in any empirical way.

No, he argues it. A different thing. And in this society, as in our birth, while circumstance and biology may favor us, the right, the law does not. And where the law is fashioned to do so it will inevitably be rejected in time, unraveled by that same founding principle.

Locke has been addressed and defeated by any number of arguments.

That's just silly, though my point wasn't to rest on Locke, but to provide a background for the thinking that was instrumental in the birth of our nation.

There is simply no grounding for equality outside religion,

I already and only just gave you one. In nature we are born with no more or less right than the next fellow. That's a fundamental equality, whatever we do with it.

:e4e:

 

[bybee]

Frequently, but not inescapably. Is it immoral to spit on a sidewalk? Our moral sensibility informs us, but that same sensibility differs in many and important ways from man to man and religious view to religious view. Our law is predicated upon the notion that no man is higher than any other, that we deserve the same inherent respect that we're born to, as I noted in my prior. The law's duty is to preserve the balance between our right to personal autonomy and warrantless interference with the next fellow's.

Re: the Constitution

Consider this portion of our Founders' mission statement:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men..."​

There's the statement of intent, of the preservation of inherent equality and a reflection of the law's attempt to preserve equity.


Only if you aren't reading yourself clearly.

I responded: Would you say the same thing about Catholics?

That's mob rule, inequality on demand.


Like slavery you mean? That appears to have been intuitive. lain: But, more seriously, you mean it isn't intuitive to some. It was, in fact, intuited by more than one or two.


Untrue. We're just the latest and most advanced model. The ideas have been around.


So? Again with the notion that right is a show of hands and truth established by popularity? You're still arguing against yourself then.


Because men differ, both in valuation and in the quality of their thinking.


Though Jefferson's notion of that God was fairly different from your own, the rhetorical use is the establishment of absolute right, the common agreement in a document that preserves the right to difference without the ideological enslavement of our European cousins or the war of dots and dashes and exegesis that followed them.


No, he argues it. A different thing. And in this society, as in our birth, while circumstance and biology may favor us, the right, the law does not. And where the law is fashioned to do so it will inevitably be rejected in time, unraveled by that same founding principle.


That's just silly, though my point wasn't to rest on Locke, but to provide a background for the thinking that was instrumental in the birth of our nation.


I already and only just gave you one. In nature we are born with no more or less right than the next fellow. That's a fundamental equality, whatever we do with it.

:e4e:

Well said. Amen

 

[zippy2006]

...Is the law related to morality TH?

Frequently, but not inescapably. Is it immoral to spit on a sidewalk? Our moral sensibility informs us, but that same sensibility differs in many and important ways from man to man and religious view to religious view. Our law is predicated upon the notion that no man is higher than any other, that we deserve the same inherent respect that we're born to, as I noted in my prior. The law's duty is to preserve the balance between our right to personal autonomy and warrantless interference with the next fellow's.

Okay, so it seems to me that you believe the law is related to morality, unless you want to argue that such notions are not moral claims.

Re: the Constitution

Consider this portion of our Founders' mission statement:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men..."​

There's the statement of intent, of the preservation of inherent equality and a reflection of the law's attempt to preserve equity.

...With religion written into and between every line :chuckle:

That's mob rule, inequality on demand.

Remember when I asked for substance rather than assertions? You want to call my religious notion whimsical and therefore faulty. What is the difference between my moral idea and your own? The crickets are getting loud. :idunno:

2. That is not intuitive,

Like slavery you mean? That appears to have been intuitive. lain: But, more seriously, you mean it isn't intuitive to some. It was, in fact, intuited by more than one or two.

Okay...:idunno: :liberals:

historical,

Untrue. We're just the latest and most advanced model. The ideas have been around.

:chuckle: How do you know you are at the latest and best? What objective standard of morality are you appealing to? Was Hitler at the latest and best? The logical conclusion of your position in this thread is to try to set up a moral system apart from God, which is oddly enough precisely what you poke fun of atheists for.

or accepted everywhere.

So? Again with the notion that right is a show of hands and truth established by popularity? You're still arguing against yourself then.

You still haven't given any reason whatsoever other than "that's the way it is now." Bell-bottoms were cool in the 60's. Things change. :idunno:

To short hand one approach: I am born with as much objectively demonstrable right to myself in thought and conduct as any other man. Your foundation denies that.

Why?

Because men differ, both in valuation and in the quality of their thinking.

This is where I expected substance, but you misunderstood my inquiry.

But considering the answer you did give, how do we settle that difference between men within society?

The fact is, these men included a rather subtle but important phrase in "created." We are equal under God, we are created equal. It is a referral to religion from the start.

Though Jefferson's notion of that God was fairly different from your own, the rhetorical use is the establishment of absolute right, the common agreement in a document that preserves the right to difference without the ideological enslavement of our European cousins or the war of dots and dashes and exegesis that followed them.

It isn't rhetorical at all. It is absolutely necessary if one wants to try to uphold any sort of objective morality without fumbling as you are. Your whole basis is religious. It doesn't matter if his concept was different, the fact is the founders saw that God was required.

Aristotle proves well enough that we aren't equal in any empirical way.

No, he argues it. A different thing. And in this society, as in our birth, while circumstance and biology may favor us, the right, the law does not. And where the law is fashioned to do so it will inevitably be rejected in time, unraveled by that same founding principle.

Quite the optimist then? You've given no argument, Aristotle has. Why is one man equal to another? Do you honestly believe you are able to give a sound secular basis for morality?

There is simply no grounding for equality outside religion,

I already and only just gave you one. In nature we are born with no more or less right than the next fellow. That's a fundamental equality, whatever we do with it.

:chuckle: Except many thinkers would argue that the "state of nature" is precisely where we are unequal, and therefore we form society to protect us from such a state of nature. Again, you've given no argument. In precisely what way do you believe we are equal in a state of nature?

:e4e:

:e4e:

 

[zippy2006]

You're over-generalizing again, and calling the generalization a principle, which it's not. Smart construction crews put people to work according to their abilities, not their gender. That often leads men to do certain types of work, and women others, but there can be any number of exceptions to that weak rule.

You're over-generalizing again, and calling the generalization a principle, which it's not. Smart construction crews put people to work according to their abilities, not their gender. That often leads men to do certain types of work, and women others, but there can be any number of exceptions to that weak rule.

Eh? My point holds just fine even in spite of this reply. :idunno: Men are in principle stronger than women. It's the way things are. Anything less is just denial.

And that continues to be irrelevant for the reasons I've already given. Here they are again, for easy reference:

1. Even though they cannot reproduce together, homosexuals can and do raise children together with their life partners.

Speaking of relevance, what does that have to do with the point I made?

2. Marriage is not exclusively about procreation. I was at a wedding yesterday, and I can say that even the Bible readings had very little to do with children and had everything to do with the couple. Marriage is substantially, if not primarily, a bonding of two individuals. The law protects this union in its own right whether or not there are any children involved, and homosexuals have every right to expect that the state will not discriminate against them in offering that benefit.

This has all been addressed already. :idunno: I'm not saying that marriage is only about procreation. We're not concerned about religious or subjective notions of marriage, only state notions.

You're not reading me correctly. I did not suggest that your fertility "in principle" is an abstract statement. I pointed out that it does not refer to any reality at all, physical or abstract. As for the empirical evidence, I don't think there's any dispute between us about the physical reality, there's just you trying to reverse-engineer a principle where it doesn't exist, and where none is actually possible in order to cover the real objection, which is religious in nature and therefore impermissible.

If you are merely denying the fact that heterosexual couples can reproduce and homosexual couples can't then we can stop now. Trying to argue with such extreme irrationality is not worth my time. :idunno:

If you're going to make fertility a requirement for marriage, yes. But then, there's a more fundamental objection that that isn't actually a stated requirement in law for any state. It's simply not the focus of the law, which is understandable if you have any idea what marriage really fundamentally is. My actual point--and this is a genuine principle, as opposed to the tap-dancing you've been doing--is that you can't apply that standard to some and not others. And you certainly can't pretend that that standard is being applied uniformly when it simply isn't applied at all, or even mentioned, as is clear from the published laws of any state you care to name. And yes, that is an implicit challenge (hereby made explicit) to name a state that does require some expectation of fertility if you want to continue to disagree with me on point.

I'd say you simply don't understand what marriage is. You think the government hands out benefits to arbitrary groupings of people for fun. Your view is irrational, and more importantly, incorrect.

I've already written on your narrow-mindedness regarding this topic which answers your request for a specific incentive.

What category is that? Certainly, eugenics violates a person's reproductive rights. But infertile couples can't reproduce, so that can't be the issue. It violates their right to marry a person of their choosing? That might be closer to the mark, but I suspect you'll try to avoid reaching that conclusion.

It is discrimination based on a flawed natural disposition. It would be like subsidizing those who have fertile sperm, which is why I just said eugenics.

What if we simply made couples sign an affidavit saying that they have no reason to believe that they would have any fertility problems? Certainly, there's no invasion of privacy there. The only way people would get in trouble is if they lied and somehow that was uncovered later. And perhaps we could set a deadline for having children, such that the couple must conceive within a certain number of years, or be forced to divorce. That way, we could avoid all those non-child-bearing couples collecting those government subsidies you're so worried about.

I think it would still fall under the invasion of privacy to force them to release such priviledged information, and I'm not sure how people would know whether they are fertile or not anyway.

Of course, the only way to truly avoid an invasion of privacy is for the government to stop discriminating between homosexual and heterosexual couples.

Putting a man in the construction position because he is stronger is not unfair discrimination.

:e4e:

:e4e:

 

[zippy2006]

I raised an objection to one out of three examples given in the paragraph k-mo was quoting in making a point to you. Here it is again:



As for the extra tax exemption and the insurance issue, they're little more than an acknowledgement that a stay-at-home parent may be dependent financially on the primary breadwinner's salary. And it is just as applicable to a gay couple as a straight couple.

I understand the article to be saying this:

1. The government subsidizes married couples
2. An important aspect of that subsidy is aimed toward helping those members of society who are fully capable of raising a family (procreation and all)


I don't see how your questions even hit the mark.

I'm not sure how you do the former without doing also the later.

Too much focus on the latter simply misses the goal altogether.

I'm doing no more or less than pointing out that an example given as a part of the case was exceptionally poor. Acknowledge, counter, or drop.

I don't think the point was exceptionally poor, but it wouldn't bother me if one of the articles did give an exceptionally poor point :idunno:

 

[zippy2006]

I think you read far too much into that one word. It's a principle, not a statement of fact. It doesn't pay to be too literal-minded about the word choice.



Mere unsupported declaration.



You propose that we should all be ruled by religious principles? If so, whose? And if not, what do you suppose the alternative is?

What is the relevant difference between a secular moral principle and a religious moral principle?

 

[kmoney]

The primary focus has shifted and is shifting, in the process creating a very depraved society. Clearly we disagree on much here, and I guess "we'll see" who is right. :idunno:

What do you have in mind when you say we are creating a very depraved society?

Didn't say it, didn't mean it, even noted quite the opposite a number of times

Then I'm not sure why you continue to mention the fact that a gay couple cannot procreate without aid.

They need both.

Agreed.

It is clearly and objectively enough to give them an elevated status, especially when we consider the government's perspective.

Why? Perhaps it might be more efficient, or something, for a man and a woman to have their own offspring, but I'm not sure that is enough to warrant marriage benefits while every one else misses out.

You just said above that society doesn't just need children, they need children that will be productive members of the society. There are children to be adopted. If you look at marriage benefits as a subsidy, why wouldn't the government also see value in homosexual couples adopting and want to subsidize that?

Or, as TH and Rex have been mentioning, homosexual couples can procreate with aid by donating sperm, etc.

You see the government as subsidizing marriage but you view it in a limited manner. I think society and the government would see value in promoting families beyond the scope you use.

Why do you think that government gives marriage benefits to couples that don't have children? If the benefits are about procreation, why not start the benefits once children are in the picture?

It's irrelevant. My Subaru can start and move, your Toyota can start. I say the Subaru is worth more, you say "but my Toyota can start toO!" :chuckle:

Actually I think it would be more like my Toyota can move but not start. :freak: Or something. :chuckle:

:e4e:

:sheep:

 

[kmoney]

1. The government subsidizes married couples
2. An important aspect of that subsidy is aimed toward helping those members of society who are fully capable of raising a family (procreation and all)

You say an important aspect....which I assume means you think there are other aspects as well? If so, what other aspects do you think there are to the marriage benefits?

This kind of ties in to the question in my previous post about why government benefits apply to childless couples as well. In my mind it wouldn't be too hard to only provide benefits once children have been born.

 

[Town Heretic]

Okay, so it seems to me that you believe the law is related to morality, unless you want to argue that such notions are not moral claims.

Rather, I noted it can be but isn't necessarily. I even set out an example of a law without any discernible moral foundation.

...With religion written into and between every line :chuckle:

Not particularly, which is rather important and goes along with my part that equity and not a particular religious morality is at the heart of our intentionally secular compact.

Remember when I asked for substance rather than assertions?

I've never given other or less than, so I didn't commit that to memory, apparently. Quote?

You want to call my religious notion whimsical and therefore faulty.

No. I'd never call anyone's religious notion whimsical and faulty doesn't enter into a purely subjective valuation. What I've said is that your religious notions, grand as they are to you, should no more control my conscience or actions (absent that balancing of interference with expressed right I noted prior) than the nearest Muslim cleric's.

What is the difference between my moral idea and your own?

We'd have to talk about that, but you're the only one advocating either of our notions should control the other's in law.

The crickets are getting loud. :idunno:

I prefer the Beatles, but to each his own.

Okay...:idunno: :liberals:

:thumb:

:chuckle: How do you know you are at the latest and best?

We, the people, of the United States. I'm ready to argue we are the best expression and are the latest to take those ideas and run with them substantively.

What objective standard of morality are you appealing to?

Again, not my argument.

Was Hitler at the latest and best? The logical conclusion of your position in this thread is to try to set up a moral system apart from God, which is oddly enough precisely what you poke fun of atheists for.

No. The logical conclusion of my argument is found in the Constitution and the ongoing illustration of its principle through application.

You still haven't given any reason whatsoever other than "that's the way it is now." Bell-bottoms were cool in the 60's. Things change. :idunno:

Simply not the case. I've set out my understanding and illustrated it more than once. I invite you or the reader to peruse our dialog. Prego.

This is where I expected substance, but you misunderstood my inquiry.

The alternative being you were less than clear. That is, do you mean why do I assert that or why does your foundation deny that? The former is set out within the quote and the latter a matter of your own advance, wherein you'd deny that equity for no more reason than your religious notions, which you feel entitled to enforce on the conscience and action of the next man though it has nothing to do with the enjoyment of your own right or an interference with it.

But considering the answer you did give, how do we settle that difference between men within society?

So as to not waste time, how do you mean this, particularly?

It isn't rhetorical at all. It is absolutely necessary if one wants to try to uphold any sort of objective morality

Which wasn't his stated aim at all... and objective in what sense?

Your whole basis is religious.

No, it isn't. I demonstrated that in noting man at birth and the equality that the law's equity seeks to enforce.

It doesn't matter if his concept was different, the fact is the founders saw that God was required.

No reference to Christ in those documents. No calling on Allah, or Yaweh. That's important. That is, your particular notion wasn't supported and neither was mine or the Rabbi's, etc.

Quite the optimist then? You've given no argument,

I'm no more interested in debating Aristotle on his notions than you felt required to debate the merit of Locke.

Aristotle has.

You haven't presented it and I don't need to address it to make or sustain my part. If you need it to attempt to counter me then you'll have to do more than suggest you have a big brother who can clean my clock.

Why is one man equal to another?

We're born into the same state, as equals. The distinctions we raise are established thereafter. By what claim do you establish an inherent inequity of right?

Do you honestly believe you are able to give a sound secular basis for morality?

I'm not attempting it.

:chuckle: Except many thinkers would argue that the "state of nature" is precisely where we are unequal, and therefore we form society to protect us from such a state of nature.

Good for them? I differ.

Again, you've given no argument.

Horsefeathers, you king-o-declaration you. :chuckle: I've been setting out exactly that from beginning to end.

In precisely what way do you believe we are equal in a state of nature?

In right. I am born free and with my own will. Every man is, save for the interference of other men and their distinctions. The just social compact is one in line with that fact, protecting my freedom and its exercise in conscience and action with regard for the right and dignity of the next fellow.


:e4e:

 

[rexlunae]

Eh? My point holds just fine even in spite of this reply. :idunno:

Hasty generalization does not a point make.

Men are in principle stronger than women. It's the way things are. Anything less is just denial.

Men are stronger than women in general, but not in principle. Once again, a generalization is not a principle.

Speaking of relevance, what does that have to do with the point I made?

I've given you two points, each of which render your entire objection irrelevant individually. If marriage isn't all about procreation, and if it is not true that homosexuals are unable to have and raise children, what difference does it make that they can't have children together in the traditional way? You keep reiterating the same obviously false suggestion that we somehow don't understand the problems that homosexuals face in reproducing rather than carrying your own argument forward and explaining why that fact should deny them the rights that all heterosexuals currently enjoy.

If you are merely denying the fact that heterosexual couples can reproduce and homosexual couples can't then we can stop now. Trying to argue with such extreme irrationality is not worth my time. :idunno:

This is about as lame as it gets. Are you so stuck that you can only think to misunderstand and misrepresent what I've said over and over again?

I'd say you simply don't understand what marriage is. You think the government hands out benefits to arbitrary groupings of people for fun. Your view is irrational, and more importantly, incorrect.

My view is founded upon a principle of legal equality that is foundational to our social compact. My view is justified by supporting reasoning. What reasoning you've presented has some very large gaps which you've failed to close so far.

I've already written on your narrow-mindedness regarding this topic which answers your request for a specific incentive.

Aside from the fact that calling me narrow-minded is merely an ad hominem, and doesn't answer in the slightest any issue that I've raised, the only time you accused me of that so far had nothing to do with this query, which you've conveniently tried to sweep under the rug. And I didn't ask for a specific incentive. You need to read more closely. I trust you can find my prior post should you care to try to actually make a response.

It is discrimination based on a flawed natural disposition. It would be like subsidizing those who have fertile sperm, which is why I just said eugenics.

Ok, so since you've realized now that it's not eugenics, I'll ask again what I set out asking. In an ideal world, should we deny marriage certificates to all couples that can't or won't produce children biologically related to both parents? This is the standard you keep clinging to for homosexuals, and yet you seem reluctant to apply it to to heterosexuals for some reason.

I think it would still fall under the invasion of privacy to force them to release such priviledged information,

Seems pretty reasonable to expect that your privacy will be limited when it comes to questions which, according to your own argument, are so very crucial to the process of getting married.

and I'm not sure how people would know whether they are fertile or not anyway.

They need not go out of their way. All I proposed is that they be required to sign an affidavit based on their knowledge at the time. Sure, there are many infertile couples who would truly be unaware, and no culpability would be involved for them, but there are lots of them that would know, too, and they would be denied their marriage license if they weren't willing to sign the affidavit.

Putting a man in the construction position because he is stronger is not unfair discrimination.

No, but putting a person in any job because of the genitals they possess is.

 

[rexlunae]

What is the relevant difference between a secular moral principle and a religious moral principle?

Secular principles can be agreed upon without all of us converting to one faith.

 

[rexlunae]

I understand the article to be saying this:

1. The government subsidizes married couples
2. An important aspect of that subsidy is aimed toward helping those members of society who are fully capable of raising a family (procreation and all)

I agree with your summary of the article. However, the argument fails on the second point on the grounds that the laws that establish these "subsidies" do not name procreation as any sort of qualification, nor is it a standard that anyone applies to those marriages.

I don't see how your questions even hit the mark.

Read more closely? :idunno:

Too much focus on the latter simply misses the goal altogether.

I disagree. I think that any time we are productive, it is because some incentive drives us. And anyway, the article makes the case that the government is offering incentives to marriage, so I don't see where you're going with this.

I don't think the point was exceptionally poor,

Would you care to justify that with a response to my reasoning, or are you going to simply respond to rational argument with lazy dismissal? Again.

Here it is, in case you missed it. The article claims that collecting the Social Security benefits of a dead spouse is an incentive to have children. I say that this is ridiculous, because clearly if you are collecting a dead spouse's SS benefits, you aren't going to have any more children with them.

It's like, if you buy a car, and then it gets totaled in an accident. Would you expect that the car dealer who sold you the car in the first place would give you a further incentive to buy the car at that point in time?

As a further challenge to the reasoning, I'd point out that remarriage of a widow results in the loss of SS survivor benefits, so these benefits could actually be a disincentive to marry and have children within marriages. These benefits are primarily about supporting the longer-surviving member of a couple, not encouraging children.

but it wouldn't bother me if one of the articles did give an exceptionally poor point :idunno:

Perhaps, then, you could give me a clear answer one way or another on whether you're going to continue defending the article on this point so that we can move on sorting out the bad arguments you've abandoned from the ones you haven't?