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

[zippy2006]

I entered into the thread with a clear enough posit: the law stands on the principle of equality, reflected in equity.

And it has been thoroughly demonstrated that the rejection of homosexual marriage does not in any way impede justice. It has also been shown that you are unable to give a grounding for your opinions on equality, unlike the founding fathers and Locke who appealed to God.

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.

It has been clearly shown that marriage is not a contract; that contract is only a small part of marriage. Marriage constitutes a fundamental building block of society in the natural order and is reflected by government aid, not merely contract between individuals.

You've ignored these facts throughout, and so I have no doubt you will continue to ignore them, but an unbiased reader will be unable to deny their validity here and throughout the thread. :e4e:

 

[Town Heretic]

And it has been thoroughly demonstrated that the rejection of homosexual marriage does not in any way impede justice.

Note how neither of the terms of my argument's foundation are directly addressed in that errant conclusion. If equality before the law is violated then an injustice has occurred. That's at the heart of every rejection of discriminatory practice. It should be in this case as well.

It has also been shown that you are unable to give a grounding for your opinions on equality, unlike the founding fathers and Locke who appealed to God.

Another misstatement, but one with no real moment, given my argument isn't impacted by whatever you feel motivates it. Equality is established as a fact of our law and I set out that authority long sense.

It has been clearly shown that marriage is not a contract;

That will come as quite a shock to the county clerk where you reside. lain: Beans. It is entirely that in relation to the state, subject to dissolution in process without any call to God in the midst of it. It is a secular device which some people mate to religious principle. It needn't be and frequently isn't.

that contract is only a small part of marriage.

No. In relation to the state, or atheist unions, by way of example, it's the entire package.

Marriage constitutes a fundamental building block of society

It certainly has, though it's less clear that will always be the case.

in the natural order

Derived or reflected in nature? :squint:

and is reflected by government aid, not merely contract between individuals.

As I noted prior, incorporate and find advantage in contract. And no one has suggested the government doesn't derive benefit from the stability marriage affords or encourage and reward it. And that would include homo and heterosexual unions.

You've ignored these facts throughout,

Nonsense. The answers I only just set out on point I've set out prior. You continue to wave the checkered flag if it amuses you, but it's a goofy waste of energy.

an unbiased reader will be unable to deny their validity here and throughout the thread. :e4e:

Only if you get to define who is unbiased. So sure, you'll find your points valid. Doubtless.

 

[rexlunae]

My answer stands, your point isn't even intersecting.

Well, no, you changed angles, and I provided a different response to the different angle. There is no way to construe spousal SS benefits as being intended to support raising children, except in the specific cases where children are mentioned as a qualifier. When the support of children is the goal, the law is not at all shy to say so. So from that we can reasonably conclude that where the law does not mention children, the goal is something else.

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.

You're like a broken record. You just reiterate the same errant understanding without even mentioning the objections I raised.

I think you're partially begging the question,

In what specific way?

but I don't see it as out of the question for social security benefits to apply elsewhere as they already do.

Right. Because they are intended to support a spouse.

And no one is talking about specific incentives except you. I thought I'd made that clear by now.

No, the article pointed out SS benefits as its leading example. When you joined in responding to my post, I asked you to defend it, concede it, or drop it. You've done a bit to defend it in this post, but for the most part it's been a lot of complaining about how I shouldn't be talking about specific examples...even when the other side brings up specific examples.

 

[zippy2006]

Note how neither of the terms of my argument's foundation are directly addressed in that errant conclusion. If equality before the law is violated then an injustice has occurred. That's at the heart of every rejection of discriminatory practice. It should be in this case as well.

Note how they are. Equality before the law is not violated, hence my statement that no injustice was done. This has all been covered, plenty of times. :wave2:

 

[rexlunae]

Okay, that seems to support my own position.

Only if your position is that morality is too complex to lay down a more-than-cursory explanation of it in a forum post. Otherwise, no. If I were to ask you the question, "How do you solve a math problem?", you couldn't answer in very specific terms. All you could hope to do is list some of the thought tools that you might use. And yet the question isn't meaningless. It has many answers. It's just difficult or impossible to take on all at once.

Honestly it is merely syntactical.

In other words, you deny that it is a difference at all.

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?

I will certainly admit that it is not easy to define exactly what religion is. Does that destroy the concept? Does that mean that when you say that you are religious it means nothing? It has to be more than just a set of beliefs and values. As a Catholic, you especially should recognize this, as your church is founded on the notion that it, as an institution, was specifically established by Jesus, such that another hypothetical church, even having all the same beliefs and values, couldn't be the same religion exactly.

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

A secular moral position is a principle rationally derived from a human value. A religious moral position is a rule derived by fiat from an authority. That is the difference.

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.

That's not exactly what I was getting at. Christianity has values, sure, but it is, at its core, a set of beliefs. I specifically wanted to object to construing them as if they're almost the same thing.

Use arguments, not scare tactics.

What exactly is wrong with pointing to the demonstrated historical consequences of founding a society upon religion?

 

[zippy2006]

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.

You're like a broken record. You just reiterate the same errant understanding without even mentioning the objections I raised.

Ditto.

My point is perfectly coherent and it completely undermines your own. The marital SS benefits at issue support marriage, which in turn supports family/society/children. You complain that the SS benefit isn't aiming specifically at children. I never said it was, or should be.

 

[rexlunae]

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

Yes, and we can see the power of having a religious check on tyrants in the mercy and tenderness of the Taliban.

 

[rexlunae]

The marital SS benefits at issue support marriage, which in turn supports family/society/children. You complain that the SS benefit isn't aiming specifically at children. I never said it was, or should be.

Why allow any couples who don't have children to collect then? How can you possibly justify saying that supporting children is the only goal when the law doesn't even ensure that there are children involved?

Ditto.

My point is perfectly coherent and it completely undermines your own.

I'll have to rest on anyone left still reading to make that call. I'm not the slightest bit worried.

 

[zippy2006]

Only if your position is that morality is too complex to lay down a more-than-cursory explanation of it in a forum post. Otherwise, no. If I were to ask you the question, "How do you solve a math problem?", you couldn't answer in very specific terms. All you could hope to do is list some of the thought tools that you might use. And yet the question isn't meaningless. It has many answers. It's just difficult or impossible to take on all at once.

And again, that is precisely my point. Morality isn't cut and dry. Religion has as great a say as anything else. Moral positions are founded on basic values and beliefs. Whether they are religious or not is, for the sake of our argument, inconsequential unless you would like to try to show otherwise.

In other words, you deny that it is a difference at all.

As it relates to our argument, yes.

I will certainly admit that it is not easy to define exactly what religion is. Does that destroy the concept? Does that mean that when you say that you are religious it means nothing? It has to be more than just a set of beliefs and values. As a Catholic, you especially should recognize this, as your church is founded on the notion that it, as an institution, was specifically established by Jesus, such that another hypothetical church, even having all the same beliefs and values, couldn't be the same religion exactly.

But if we differ in doctrine then we differ in beliefs. Religion, from a secular perspective, is merely a set of beliefs and values about the world. Why should a group of people with one set of beliefs and values be barred from consideration?

The grain of truth that is misleading you is this: if we have common ground that can be used to come to agreement, it should be used. I agree with that. Where you go wrong is in thinking that the Secular constitutes that common ground for moral and law-related issues. It just doesn't, and that is evidenced by the fact that actually distinguishing between what is "secular" and what is "religious" is so hard. But I have no need to beat this into you; unless you can give a strong way to separate the two moral views that is relevant to the issue at hand, then clearly I have no reason to believe that I should not vote based on my religious views.

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

A secular moral position is a principle rationally derived from a human value. A religious moral position is a rule derived by fiat from an authority. That is the difference.

1. I'd say you're wrong, that both positions are derived from values and beliefs as I already noted. Certainly you would admit that your generalization of religious morality doesn't hold in every case, and I would argue that the generalization isn't even justifiable.

2. I don't disagree with the "rationally derived" part. But my point all along has been that the human values which rationality may work on are not themselves rationally derived--certainly not in the secular case. We are disagreeing on the human values themselves, the rationality you spoke of has nothing to do with it.

That's not exactly what I was getting at. Christianity has values, sure, but it is, at its core, a set of beliefs. I specifically wanted to object to construing them as if they're almost the same thing.

Okay...:idunno: I don't think you can separate values from beliefs as neatly as you would like. Whether we have to get into that is another question.

What exactly is wrong with pointing to the demonstrated historical consequences of founding a society upon religion?

I object for the same reason you would object if I noted the grossly more violent secular regimes in recent history.

:e4e:

 

[zippy2006]

Why allow any couples who don't have children to collect then? How can you possibly justify saying that supporting children is the only goal when the law doesn't even ensure that there are children involved?

I never once said, in this entire thread, despite gross and unreflective accusations to the contrary, that the only goal of marriage is the explicit support of children.

 

[rexlunae]

I never once said, in this entire thread, despite gross and unreflective accusations to the contrary, that the only goal of marriage is the explicit support of children.

Then why deny homosexuals the same legal protection enjoyed by heterosexual couples? You've only offered procreation as justification.

 

[zippy2006]

Then why deny homosexuals the same legal protection enjoyed by heterosexual couples?

What do you mean legal protection? You mean "Why should the government not positively recognize and support homosexual unions as they do marriage?"?

 

[rexlunae]

What do you mean legal protection? You mean "Why should the government not positively recognize and support homosexual unions as they do marriage?"?

I mean homosexual marriage.

 

[zippy2006]

I mean homosexual marriage.

Right, so I will take it to mean "Why should the government not positively recognize and support homosexual unions as they do marriage?"

What do you think marriage is? Why do you think the government recognizes and subsidizes marriage? Give me some concrete reasons.

 

[rexlunae]

Right, so I will take it to mean "Why should the government not positively recognize and support homosexual unions as they do marriage?"

I think my meaning is clear enough without being reworded. I don't really care if you consider them to be equal, what I care about is that they are treated the same way by the government.

What do you think marriage is?

A consentual union of two people.

Why do you think the government recognizes and subsidizes marriage? Give me some concrete reasons.

* To support and protect the stability of families.
* To ease the legal difficulties of the union and disunion of two people, and establish legal boundaries of conduct.
* To declare the union in a standard world-recognized format.

 

[zippy2006]

I think my meaning is clear enough without being reworded. I don't really care if you consider them to be equal, what I care about is that they are treated the same way by the government.

Why must they be treated the same way by the government? Must we treat apples and oranges the same way?

A consentual union of two people.

Then the homosexuals have it.

* To support and protect the stability of families.

1. Heterosexuals are the only ones capable of producing families
2. It has been proven beyond a doubt that the ideal setting for a child is one where there is one father and one mother.

As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in these unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction to the principle, recognized also in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in every case.

-Church

* To ease the legal difficulties of the union and disunion of two people, and establish legal boundaries of conduct.

This is contract, the homosexuals are free to contract; we are all free to contract.

* To declare the union in a standard world-recognized format.

I don't follow. Why does the government want to do this?

 

[Town Heretic]

Note how neither of the terms of my argument's foundation (equity/equality) are directly addressed in that errant conclusion.

Note how they are.

Unless you confuse counterfactual declaration that no injustice has been done with a substantive address, beans.

If equality before the law is violated then an injustice has occurred. That's at the heart of every rejection of discriminatory practice. It should be in this case as well. Equality before the law demands equal right and treatment, which you and numerous jurisdictions deny without any intellectually meritorious foundation.

Equality before the law is not violated,

It is. Homosexual couples are, in those many jurisdictions, denied the right to enter into the same contract of marriage that heterosexuals may, before the state. This is discriminatory practice rooted singularly in religious principle and is no more appropriate than the adoption of Sharia law.

hence my statement that no injustice was done.

Again, though this seems lost on you, declaration is neither argument nor accomplishment. Else, Letsargue would be a giant among men and you'd have a point.

This has all been covered, plenty of times.

You've waved that checkered flag frequently enough, to be sure. Not the same thing though, really. :nono:

:wave2:

:e4e:

 

[kmoney]

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:

Why does it need to be on the same plane to receive government benefits? If government sees benefits in both types of marriage then why wouldn't the government subsidize that as well?

I've been tricked! :IA:

:reals:

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

I don't see how homosexual marriage endangers that 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:

I'm not seeing the analogy. :idunno:

I assume you mean that the trickle-down theory instills generosity into the people? But I'm not sure what value you see being instilled by only allowing heterosexual marriages.

 

[chrysostom]

It is. Homosexual couples are, in those many jurisdictions, denied the right to enter into the same contract of marriage that heterosexuals may, before the state. This is discriminatory practice rooted singularly in religious principle and is no more appropriate than the adoption of Sharia law.

that is ridiculous

 

[kmoney]

that is ridiculous

Yes it is. Glad to see you on our side finally. :thumb:

Gay marriage FTW.