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

[zippy2006]

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.

It doesn't matter if they aren't explicitly outlined. I doubt there are any explicit reasons given for the benefit at all. This is the narrow-mindedness I spoke of.

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?

Thanks for actually giving an argument :thumb:

I already noted, and you agreed, that the article is essentially:

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)

Your car analogy is terrible. The government doesn't give anything if the partner is dead. If part of the contract of getting the car in the first place was a sort of insurance in the case of an accident then it would make perfect sense that he receives something from the dealership after the fact. The dealer offered a benefit to buying the car because he felt that the purchase would be worthwhile. So again, I don't see how your question even hits the mark.

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.

I'd say they aren't, and I'd say that the government isn't trying to extend the life of particular members of society. The government is rather offering an incentive to marry. The fact that the incentive carries into the future isn't problematic in the least; you are reaching.

:e4e:

 

[zippy2006]

Actually it makes perfect sense if you look past your bias. Why should the government prevent cousins from marrying if that is what they want to do? It is the absolute logical conclusion of your position, he is just stating an obvious fact. "Why should cousins be denied the right to marry!" The same is happening elsewhere with polygamists. Clearly marriage has nothing to do with reproduction or reproductive status according to those who want gay "marriage."

I can't think of any significant case that can be made against cousins marrying at all--the "ick" factor is irrelevant and the genetic risks involved have been greatly overblown.

I arrest my case

I'll bite then, why do you believe the government should bar siblings or closer relatives from marriage? :think:

 

[Devils advocate]

I have one thing to say about it. Yeeckk!!!!

 

[zippy2006]

Sure I did. Only just.

Nope ya didn't :nananana:

Equality is a moral notion, is it not?

Not necessarily and one man may imply immorality in the notion while the next counts it a virtue, approached that way. All equality before the law requires is the understanding I set out, which isn't a moral argument at all, in foundation or execution, though it doubtless has moral resonance for those impacted.

Eh? I don't buy it. An argument would be nice. :idunno:

Maybe you ought to come up with an actual counter/response. Else, answered.

Not required :yawn: It takes a thick cloth to hide explicit words like "created" and "God" from the sentences in question. If you want to wear it I won't be concerned, especially when you have the odd and constant notion that you are right until proven wrong, even absent argument of any kind. :idunno:

It's simply not true. You argue that your notion of "equality" should control the other in law but not my notion of marriage and have consistently failed to give a reason separating them.

In order: it's demonstrably true (I demonstrated it); it isn't "my notion" but the law's; no idea what you mean by "but not my notion of marriage" since I'm arguing your posit advances inequality and should be an offense to that same law; and horsefeathers.

assertion

No, but I understand why you need for that to be the case. Else, I set out the contrary and illustrated it more than once.

You've asserted, if that's what you mean.

And I've asked you at least four times now to elaborate on what that notion precisely is.

Short of literally reducing this to pictograph I don't know how to be any clearer...

An answer would be something. :liberals:

Complete and utter nonsense. Like suggesting that if I say a prayer before dinner it is transformed into a religious celebration.


Errant on its face, supra and prior.


I have. Repeatedly. :chuckle:

:deadhorse:

I don't agree with your premise (that the law is only an extension of moral argument). I've set out what the law is and preserves between men. Again, we differ in the foundation and function and there's nothing for it.

...Which is also in my favor, though you've not said anything of the like. We disagree, so we vote or fight, unless you want to argue, which you obviously don't.

The only logical reason we are equal is because of God, and the Constitution reflects that. Attempt to show otherwise if you'd like.

I already did in my born to equality/distinguished by operations of will bit, to shorthand it. I omit the next part, which is raised and answered above and prior. The point of my answer was to note a convenient selectivity on your part in declaring Locke done without particular effort or evidence then suggesting I should do more for the next fellow.

I said attempt to show otherwise. I would talk to SH if I wanted assertions.

Neither have you In fact I simply followed suit.

Just a note: you have this backwards.

Wrong again: I only noted Aristotle after you noted Locke. Check it if you like. :idunno:

He wasn't offered as a final authority. You wanted background. I gave you an illustration from nature independent of that note. And you're mistaking the necessity of agreement in foundation of a compact with a conference of truth. That wasn't the Founder's understanding. It isn't mine.

:chuckle: But you don't agree with the founders at all. They weren't attempting to found morality on secular notions.

That's another mere assertion. Equal in what way?

I am born with my own mind and will and the ability to exercise them. That's the beginning for any man. The relation and distinctions that flow from that exercise begin the division among us but is preceded by that indisputable fact.

So what? I've asked you in my last message what you mean by "freedom" and how will leads to rights, and you have not answered at all. Neither have you answered my questions about the animal kingdom. You also conveniently ignored my argument about value and existence, or morality and logic. This is easily one of the worst showings I have ever seen from you TH.

I'm noting what the law is, how it functions, and how you mean to alter that.

And you no doubt would love to stop there, at "because the law says so." Every one of my questions and positions requires you to go further than that, and you simply haven't been able. You should know as well as any that your notion of "how the law functions" isn't at all agreed upon. Inferring such is simply dishonesty.

And why ought we take your side and not theirs?

Self interest, at the root. Or, because they're confusing right and principle with biological function, mostly.

Self interest? :squint: You were talking about rights, now "self-interest"?

And until you can give a secular basis for "right and principle" over and above self-interest or biological function you're simply dancing. Not Locke, not the founding fathers, not anyone you have referenced believes in the secular moral status of equality as you do.

You simply haven't, you oughtn't even deny it. You've appealed to Locke and claimed that we are born equal, without explaining what you mean by that or giving a why at all.About as wrong as you could get it. Noting Locke isn't appealing to him. I set out my part and did so again within this post. I haven't claimed, I've set out how we are born equal prior and above. I omit the last because it's answered above/prior here.

Well that's a start: acknowledging that you've said very little.

:e4e:

:e4e:

 

[zippy2006]

I never claimed that some sort of valueless morality was possible. But there are values which transcend religious disposition. These are human values, and they need no further authority to resonate with people of normal moral capacity.

How precisely do you arrive at them? :think:

So a relevant difference would be one that qualitatively separates a secular value axiom from a religious value axiom.

I think the fact that they don't require that we all convert religions to reach consensus, which people are remarkably resistant to doing, is a fine difference. I'll admit that it doesn't eliminate conflicting values, which would probably end up being very oppressive anyway, but it gives us some sort of common ground to argue from. But of course, the compromise that must be made is the one that TH has been advocating all along; that the religious sentiments of one shouldn't dictate to another.

But that isn't a qualitative difference. Each requires a conversion, one a religious conversion and the other a value conversion (of which, I would argue, a religious conversion is simply a particular case). You've simply not shown that there is a difference. It comes down to values/beliefs in either case, and in both cases values/beliefs are imposed.

And your folly is failing to learn from the sectarian conflicts following the Reformation. Or in any number of conflicts in many parts of the world today, for that matter. Given the choice between the two, I like my folly better, as poorly as you seem to understand it.

That's ironic :chuckle:

 

[Granite]

I arrest my case

I'll bite then, why do you believe the government should bar siblings or closer relatives from marriage? :think:

Because of the medical and psychological dangers involved--pretty good place to start. Since you haven't actually addressed the issue of cousins marrying I can only assume it was either a red herring on your part or just another idea you haven't thought over very well.

 

[kmoney]

:wave2: Hey zippy...

Not sure if you were going to reply to my posts but I wanted to at least bump my post #576.

:e4e:

 

[Town Heretic]

Eh? I don't buy it.

Well..that changes...

An argument would be nice. :idunno:

Understanding it has already been offered and more than once would be equally pleasant. lain:

"Maybe you ought to come up with an actual counter/response. Else, answered."

Not required :yawn:

You should consider this as a motto. And you can keep insisting I'm not offering argument, but the truth (and the text) is against you.

assertion

Of course. Any advance is that. I assert in summary of points taken and advanced with illustration prior.

"I don't agree with your premise (that the law is only an extension of moral argument). I've set out what the law is and preserves between men. Again, we differ in the foundation and function and there's nothing for it."

...Which is also in my favor,

Said he, waving a checkered flag for no discernible reason. :think:

though you've not said anything of the like. We disagree, so we vote or fight, unless you want to argue, which you obviously don't.

What's in your favor? Nonsense. I've not said anything of what sort? Horsefeathers. I noted the function of the law and its root in protecting that which we only lose by distinctions that come after.

I said attempt to show otherwise. I would talk to SH if I wanted assertions.

I don't goad nor feel obliged to advance any but my own ideas in response and in the manner that pleases me, which is always on the point in question.

Wrong again:

Said he, having failed to prove the first.

I only noted Aristotle after you noted Locke. Check it if you like. :idunno:

Chronology wasn't the backwards part. It was the response you made followed by the demand you made. You felt it sufficient to dismiss Locke without argument then felt I should be compelled to examine the argument of Aristotle.

But you don't agree with the founders at all. They weren't attempting to found morality on secular notions.

They weren't attempting to found morality at all. Now in protecting people from the very thing you'd begin to establish (or would you reject any advancement of Catholic dogma that could be set out as a morally positive law, from your vantage?) they agree with me sufficiently.

So what?

So there. lain:

I've asked you in my last message what you mean by "freedom" and how will leads to rights, and you have not answered at all.

I have answered as to the foundation of right. Freedom is an exercise of those rights, restricted only in its interference with the rights of others.

Neither have you answered my questions about the animal kingdom.

I won't take every side bar. It had no bearing on my point or part. You were attempting to muddy the water and I wasn't interested in the ploy. :idunno:

You also conveniently ignored my argument about value and existence, or morality and logic.

What matters to me is what you mean to do to and with the law and what the law both is and must remain. Why you believe you're entitled to do so is of less interest to me than the fact that doing so violates the spirit of the law and is an entreaty to tyranny. That is, I don't need to argue your foundation if your application is sufficiently errant and contrary to the law, as it was and remains.

This is easily one of the worst showings I have ever seen from you TH.

To respond in kind: would I could respond in kind. lain:

Don't worry lad, I'll survive your disappointment.

"I'm noting what the law is, how it functions, and how you mean to alter that."

And you no doubt would love to stop there, at "because the law says so."

Which I didn't do...having answered as to the root of that, more than once. But stopping at how the law functions and how you mean to amend it is sufficient for this part, to be sure. Noting your legal relativism in the name of moral absolutism is more than enough to make my case against you.

Every one of my questions and positions requires you to go further than that, and you simply haven't been able.

So it's not merely that you think that much of yourself then. :think:

You should know as well as any that your notion of "how the law functions" isn't at all agreed upon. Inferring such is simply dishonesty.

My honesty isn't in question here by anyone without an interest to advance, if cheaply. Your maturity, at this point, is another matter.

Self interest? :squint: You were talking about rights, now "self-interest"?

You asked a different question. Why should someone choose between two different contexts? One good answer is it's in their best interest. If I safeguard every man's right I safeguard my own.

And until you can give a secular basis for "right and principle" over and above self-interest or biological function you're simply dancing.

In order: I've given you a few, ending with self interest and beginning with natural right. Neither would be "dancing" which mostly seems to be a way for you to say "No, no, another one".

Not Locke, not the founding fathers, not anyone you have referenced believes in the secular moral status of equality as you do.

Arguable, given those founding fathers could have easily advanced your notion and instead protected us from it in perfect accord (if not perfect practice) with my understanding so far as the application is concerned. But given I'm not arguing for Locke or the Fathers, it's of no real moment to me when we differ, assuming.

Well that's a start: acknowledging that you've said very little.

Which, were it so, would still give me the advantage here. Riposte.

:e4e:

 

[zippy2006]

Because of the medical and psychological dangers involved--pretty good place to start.

Should cigarettes be banned as well? Are they hurting you?

Since you haven't actually addressed the issue of cousins marrying I can only assume it was either a red herring on your part or just another idea you haven't thought over very well.

Like I said, you made my point for me. :idunno:

 

[zippy2006]

:wave2: Hey zippy...

Not sure if you were going to reply to my posts but I wanted to at least bump my post #576.

:e4e:

Sure. I am getting a bit tired of the thread and am trying not to open new conversations within it, but here you go:

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?

I think the government gives the benefits because of the child-oriented status of the couple. I could see how the government would be willing to subsidize other couples or organizations that are willing to provide care, but I don't think it is really on the same plane. Procreation is something that is completely unique to heterosexual couples. Like you said, the car wouldn't even start without them. :chuckle:

This kind of ties in to the question in my previous post...

I've been tricked! :IA:

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.

The government is concerned with establishing a healthy and self-sustaining society. Marriage fosters that kind of a society.

I see your point here as analogous to a sort of welfare state as opposed to a trickle-down mindset if that makes sense. I think the trickle-down analogy is a better option because it actually instills a positive and healthy value into the population etc.

...But this is covered in the 3rd article I gave under the heading "If Not Same‐Sex Couples, Why Infertile Ones?"

:e4e:

 

[zippy2006]

Chronology wasn't the backwards part. It was the response you made followed by the demand you made. You felt it sufficient to dismiss Locke without argument then felt I should be compelled to examine the argument of Aristotle.

You felt it sufficient to cue Locke without argument. Like I said, I responded in kind.

Well..that changes...


Understanding it has already been offered and more than once would be equally pleasant. lain:

"Maybe you ought to come up with an actual counter/response. Else, answered."

You should consider this as a motto. And you can keep insisting I'm not offering argument, but the truth (and the text) is against you.


Of course. Any advance is that. I assert in summary of points taken and advanced with illustration prior.

"I don't agree with your premise (that the law is only an extension of moral argument). I've set out what the law is and preserves between men. Again, we differ in the foundation and function and there's nothing for it."

Said he, waving a checkered flag for no discernible reason. :think:


What's in your favor? Nonsense. I've not said anything of what sort? Horsefeathers. I noted the function of the law and its root in protecting that which we only lose by distinctions that come after.


I don't goad nor feel obliged to advance any but my own ideas in response and in the manner that pleases me, which is always on the point in question.


Said he, having failed to prove the first.





They weren't attempting to found morality at all. Now in protecting people from the very thing you'd begin to establish (or would you reject any advancement of Catholic dogma that could be set out as a morally positive law, from your vantage?) they agree with me sufficiently.


So there. lain:


I have answered as to the foundation of right. Freedom is an exercise of those rights, restricted only in its interference with the rights of others.


I won't take every side bar. It had no bearing on my point or part. You were attempting to muddy the water and I wasn't interested in the ploy. :idunno:


What matters to me is what you mean to do to and with the law and what the law both is and must remain. Why you believe you're entitled to do so is of less interest to me than the fact that doing so violates the spirit of the law and is an entreaty to tyranny. That is, I don't need to argue your foundation if your application is sufficiently errant and contrary to the law, as it was and remains.


To respond in kind: would I could respond in kind. lain:

Don't worry lad, I'll survive your disappointment.

"I'm noting what the law is, how it functions, and how you mean to alter that."

Which I didn't do...having answered as to the root of that, more than once. But stopping at how the law functions and how you mean to amend it is sufficient for this part, to be sure. Noting your legal relativism in the name of moral absolutism is more than enough to make my case against you.


So it's not merely that you think that much of yourself then. :think:


My honesty isn't in question here by anyone without an interest to advance, if cheaply. Your maturity, at this point, is another matter.


You asked a different question. Why should someone choose between two different contexts? One good answer is it's in their best interest. If I safeguard every man's right I safeguard my own.


In order: I've given you a few, ending with self interest and beginning with natural right. Neither would be "dancing" which mostly seems to be a way for you to say "No, no, another one".


Arguable, given those founding fathers could have easily advanced your notion and instead protected us from it in perfect accord (if not perfect practice) with my understanding so far as the application is concerned. But given I'm not arguing for Locke or the Fathers, it's of no real moment to me when we differ, assuming.


Which, were it so, would still give me the advantage here. Riposte.

:e4e:

With regard for my patience, I will ignore the childish slew of assertions, and give you another chance to address the topic.

You have claimed that all men are equal and that this is a right. Not created equal, not equal under God. You've given absolutely no justification for this assertion. Question: What do you mean by equal? Hellen Keller and Muhammed Ali come into the world. In what way are they equal? A secular response clearly may not include any appeal to a soul, or the infinite. In fact my still unanswered question about animals is quite relevant, seeing as how the only difference between us on a secular basis is rationality.

You also conveniently ignored my argument about value and existence, or morality and logic.

What matters to me is what you mean to do to and with the law and what the law both is and must remain. Why you believe you're entitled to do so is of less interest to me than the fact that doing so violates the spirit of the law and is an entreaty to tyranny. That is, I don't need to argue your foundation if your application is sufficiently errant and contrary to the law, as it was and remains.

Like I said earlier "because the law says so" is not an answer. You've continued to ignore the point, which aims at your foundation rather than a superfluous extension.


Finally a word on where we've come:

You say men are equal, a right by birth (how one has inherent rights in a purely secular/atheistic setting has not been answered). Giving no reasons, you claim it is "self-evident." You also appeal to Locke.

1. Locke has been answered by too many to note, but his foundation was theistic so he isn't even relevant to this conversation

2. I've noted that the contrary was just as "self-evident" to a number of other generations.

So now you say "Okay fine, we disagree and there it sits, we've gotten nowhere."

But that is incorrect as well. Disagreements must be settled between members of society, but you are unwilling to settle. You are unwilling to vote it down. I don't know where that puts you, though it seems likely you are wearing a dictator's shoes. My point all along was that, just like anything else, government aid to homosexuals is a matter that can be voted on. You've dismissed it as non-votable on a whim and in light of an honest disagreement.


More explicitly:

1. The secular definition of a human being seems to be a rational animal
2. Animals do not have rights, therefore rationality must be the key to our having inherent rights on your view
3. On a secular worldview, there is no higher rationality than man.
4. Therefore, when two men rationally and honestly disagree, there is no clean way to resolve the disagreement. We fight or vote. That you are arguing some third option doesn't even compute.

:e4e:

 

[Town Heretic]

...With regard for my patience, I will ignore the childish slew of assertions, and give you another chance to address the topic.

So you aren't reading your posts? That would explain a bit. Or, you're getting better than you ask for in that regard. If you're thin skinned adopt another manner. I've been gentle enough, God knows.

You have claimed that all men are equal and that this is a right.

I've noted that we are born equal and that our right to remain that way, relative to one another, is the foundation of our law.

Not created equal, not equal under God.

Given I noted the preamble, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution, that's loopy. Rather, I distinguished between recognition and the protection from more particular institutionalization of the sort you'd have. It was the thing that tore Europe to pieces and the very mistake the Founders sought to avoid repeating. I agree with them. You don't.

A secular response clearly may not include any appeal to a soul, or the infinite.

Depends on what you mean by appeal. Jefferson, no Christian he, referenced God clearly enough while keeping men from foisting their particular notions about Him and His desires onto their fellows.

In fact my still unanswered question about animals is quite relevant, seeing as how the only difference between us on a secular basis is rationality.

Like saying the only difference between a sculpture and a person is that the statue isn't one.

Like I said earlier "because the law says so" is not an answer.

And you were wrong in your reading and presumptive in your address then too.

Disagreements must be settled between members of society, but you are unwilling to settle.

That's a goofy shorthand for "I'm right and won't be satisfied until you declare it" which not only isn't demonstrably true, but mustn't necessarily happen. In my greater experience, it all too rarely does. You don't mean settle; you mean capitulate. You're bound to be disappointed then.

You are unwilling to vote it down.

As I've said, I don't find virtue in the mob. And neither will you when it turns on your part. Enough of the Founders understood this to protect us from it, at least to the extent they could.

I don't know where that puts you, though it seems likely you are wearing a dictator's shoes.

If I am it is a strange sort, insisting as it does that every man be allowed his own conscience, where your tyranny is of the more familiar variety.

My point all along was that, just like anything else, government aid to homosexuals is a matter that can be voted on.

Government aid? :sigh: This remains a matter of equality and equity.

You've dismissed it as non-votable on a whim and in light of an honest disagreement.

That's funny.

More explicitly:

When did I say we shouldn't fight? If you mean to enslave the public to your morality and reduce government to the momentary and changing passions of the mob then you should and will be fought tooth and nail.

:e4e:

 

[Granite]

Should cigarettes be banned as well? Are they hurting you?

I'm a smoker, so you're asking the wrong guy. I'm a libertarian as well, so you're most doubly barking up the wrong tree. But there's a clear difference between personal vices (which harm the individual) and the creation of a child with significant genetic, psychological, and medical disadvantages (which harm a complete innocent). You're comparing apples and typewriters.

And you continue to not address your original point, which means, again, that either you don't know what the world you're talking about or you're just interested in wasting my time.

At the risk that you're not just a troll--and if so, you're certainly suckering TH--here's a worthwhile read.

http://www.slate.com/id/2277787/

 

[rexlunae]

It doesn't matter if they aren't explicitly outlined. I doubt there are any explicit reasons given for the benefit at all. This is the narrow-mindedness I spoke of.

That's true. There are few reasons given for the laws that are in place. But that doesn't mean that there aren't fairly obvious purposes behind the laws. For example, what purpose does the criminal charge of spousal abandonment, a separate charge from child abandonment, serve if not to support the union itself, regardless of children?

I already noted, and you agreed, that the article is essentially:

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)

Yes, I agree that that is what the article seeks to argue.

Your car analogy is terrible. The government doesn't give anything if the partner is dead. If part of the contract of getting the car in the first place was a sort of insurance in the case of an accident then it would make perfect sense that he receives something from the dealership after the fact. The dealer offered a benefit to buying the car because he felt that the purchase would be worthwhile. So again, I don't see how your question even hits the mark.

Social Security has survivor benefits that go to spouses raising children and also directly to the spouse regardless of children.

Even in the light of an incentive prior to marriage, survivor benefits for a spouse, which are separate from survivor benefits for a dependent child, do not require children to enter the equation except in a couple of special cases. And they easily could. Denying these benefits to homosexual couples serves to discourage them from forming the most useful family units that they could.

I'd say they aren't, and I'd say that the government isn't trying to extend the life of particular members of society. The government is rather offering an incentive to marry. The fact that the incentive carries into the future isn't problematic in the least; you are reaching.

Unlike some laws, we can actually get a good idea what SS was intended to do. As the name Social Security implies, the program is designed to provide security from disruption due to events such as death of a family member, old age, and disability. The preamble of the original Social Security Act of 1935 mentions "maternal and child welfare", but does not at any point mention "incentive to marry" or anything even remotely like it.

The benefits of SS apply to children, spouses, and even sometimes to parents. Describing it as incentive package to marriage is absolutely ridiculous and runs contrary to the most obvious intentions of the law.

 

[rexlunae]

How precisely do you arrive at them? :think:

I know of no simple of quick method. It simply becomes necessary, as you live with other people and interact with them (or, as Jefferson might put it, "When in the course of human events...") to establish rules of conduct. They assert themselves after a while. This tends to annoy people who would prefer to think of morality as a branch of mathematics, but it is the situation in which we find ourselves.

But that isn't a qualitative difference.

What other kind of difference could it possibly be?

Each requires a conversion, one a religious conversion and the other a value conversion (of which, I would argue, a religious conversion is simply a particular case).

Only if you negate the concept of religion itself, and construe it as merely a set of independent choices.

You've simply not shown that there is a difference. It comes down to values/beliefs in either case, and in both cases values/beliefs are imposed.

Beliefs and values are not the same thing, so lets not conflate them here. Per John 3:16, Christianity is fundamentally a belief system. Values are another question.

That's ironic :chuckle:

I'm sure you think so. You might even find some support in it. But there is a clear historical record of the bad things that come of directly basing a society on religious dictates, whatever other problems you might point to elsewhere.

 

[zippy2006]

Your car analogy is terrible. The government doesn't give anything if the partner is dead. If part of the contract of getting the car in the first place was a sort of insurance in the case of an accident then it would make perfect sense that he receives something from the dealership after the fact. The dealer offered a benefit to buying the car because he felt that the purchase would be worthwhile. So again, I don't see how your question even hits the mark.

Social Security has survivor benefits that go to spouses raising children and also directly to the spouse regardless of children.

Even in the light of an incentive prior to marriage, survivor benefits for a spouse, which are separate from survivor benefits for a dependent child, do not require children to enter the equation except in a couple of special cases. And they easily could. Denying these benefits to homosexual couples serves to discourage them from forming the most useful family units that they could.

My answer stands, your point isn't even intersecting. The government supports marriage, marriage supports children. The government can support marriage with children in mind without having to explicitly cater to the specific cases of children themselves.

Unlike some laws, we can actually get a good idea what SS was intended to do. As the name Social Security implies, the program is designed to provide security from disruption due to events such as death of a family member, old age, and disability. The preamble of the original Social Security Act of 1935 mentions "maternal and child welfare", but does not at any point mention "incentive to marry" or anything even remotely like it.

The benefits of SS apply to children, spouses, and even sometimes to parents. Describing it as incentive package to marriage is absolutely ridiculous and runs contrary to the most obvious intentions of the law.

I think you're partially begging the question, but I don't see it as out of the question for social security benefits to apply elsewhere as they already do. And no one is talking about specific incentives except you. I thought I'd made that clear by now.

:e4e:

 

[zippy2006]

I know of no simple of quick method. It simply becomes necessary, as you live with other people and interact with them (or, as Jefferson might put it, "When in the course of human events...") to establish rules of conduct. They assert themselves after a while. This tends to annoy people who would prefer to think of morality as a branch of mathematics, but it is the situation in which we find ourselves.

Okay, that seems to support my own position.

But that isn't a qualitative difference.

What other kind of difference could it possibly be?

Honestly it is merely syntactical. All you've actually said is "religious values cannot be imposed because they are religious, but secular values can be imposed because they are secular." You've honestly said nothing at all. What differentiates the two?

Only if you negate the concept of religion itself, and construe it as merely a set of independent choices.

A religion is simply a set of values and beliefs. A secular moral position is precisely the same thing.

Beliefs and values are not the same thing, so lets not conflate them here. Per John 3:16, Christianity is fundamentally a belief system. Values are another question.

No, religion and Christianity entail beliefs and values. Each impacts the other. You've given me no reason to believe that a religious moral position is qualitatively different from a secular moral position. Each position is logical, there is merely a differing starting position, and that starting position certainly cannot be meted out definitively.

I'm sure you think so. You might even find some support in it. But there is a clear historical record of the bad things that come of directly basing a society on religious dictates, whatever other problems you might point to elsewhere.

Use arguments, not scare tactics.

:e4e:

 

[zippy2006]

When did I say we shouldn't fight? If you mean to enslave the public to your morality and reduce government to the momentary and changing passions of the mob then you should and will be fought tooth and nail.

Then we're in agreement, and when you are reduced to pathetically empty assertions and a complete failure to address specific points aimed at you, instead fleeing to your usual tactics of taking three quotes per sentence, I don't see why anyone wouldn't be uneasy with you. You've refused argument, you've refused to vote, and now you claim that you will fight. Fantastic. Quite a case you've made.

 

[zippy2006]

A reminder for Christians who have forgotten where morality and equality come from in truth and in law:

A Nation under God

Here is a statement from Ratzinger on the topic of homosexuality.

 

[Town Heretic]

Then we're in agreement, and when you are reduced to pathetically empty assertions and a complete failure to address specific points aimed at you,

Said the fellow who cut entire sections without comment.

instead fleeing to your usual tactics of taking three quotes per sentence,

I never alter a point, but I'm not in the business of competing with Kinko's or with wasting time with rabbit holes.

I don't see why anyone wouldn't be uneasy with you.

Me either. I'm a friendly enough fellow unless pushed.

You've refused argument,

Patently false. As with your desire to impose your specific morality, you apparently feel obliged to act as the arbiter of what should and must be addressed and in what manner. :chuckle: I don't recognize your authority in that part any more than I support your desire to impose else.

you've refused to vote,

And set out why, you lover of the mob you.

and now you claim that you will fight.

To the extend required. But you've a lost hand at the outset, so it mostly amounts to noting it.

Fantastic. Quite a case you've made.

Why thank you. lain:

I haven't refused argument any more than I've allowed you to reframe it by bait or switch. I entered into the thread with a clear enough posit: the law stands on the principle of equality, reflected in equity. The matter of marriage is a matter of contract as it concerns the government. To deny consenting adults the right to contract with no more foundation than a particular religious understanding is violative of that principle and will, ultimately, fail for that very reason.


:e4e: