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

[zippy2006]

Can you briefly give your natural law argument? In your words.

I know you will disagree with me on fundamental issues here (even more so than others would), but here is the basic layout:

1. Humans are monogamous and jealous creatures. The sexual act is between precisely two people and forms a bond between those two. Part of this bond is a natural and healthy jealousy; a promise so to speak.

2. Human offspring require extended attention and growth in a stable environment. The most conducive environment for the growth of human children is one with a mother and a father, each of which brings different elements to the table.

3. From 1 and 2 we see that marriage is not a man-made institution, but a natural institution derived from the very nature of human beings and the requirements for healthy new human beings. Government sanctioning this natural institution is quite intuitive, and naturally leads to a healthy society.


You probably disagree with parts of 1, namely monogamy, but I'm not overly interested in arguing the point of whether human beings are monogamous. I don't think it would be fruitful.

:e4e:

 

[zippy2006]

Founding Fathers

Founding Fathers

Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?

Why the Founding Fathers meant "under God" when they said it.

 

[rexlunae]

This is patently false, and you know it.

I'll warn you that the history of people telling me what I know is rather poor, and I don't see where this is going to lead to any novel point between us. I'd like to see Chrys respond as he sees fit.

Why should the government be required to support an ambiguous collection of persons?

Not something I've suggested. All I've suggested is that they are required to offer to all what they offer to some.

The argument that we are making is that they shouldn't (common sense)

Ah yes, the "common sense" appeal. The appeal to that invisible, silent majority that you can always appoint yourself to speak for. Let me know if it ever persuades anyone, will you?

and that marriage is no such thing, and that the government has a specific reason to support marriage and that that reason inherently has nothing to do with homosexual couples.

The only reason you've given is only exclusive to heterosexuals with the application of a great deal of magic, aka your fertility "in principle" standard. I can't see why you think anyone would be persuaded by such an appeal.

If you honestly think that our side is just a bunch of religious hooey without any argument

It is, and it becomes more apparent the longer you try to ply it. Especially as you start relying directly on Catholic propaganda to make your argument. But your earlier aside to TH was sufficient demonstration for me.

and you are the only one with the objective reasons,

I'd never presume that far.

then you simply must stop these kinds of statements.

I will not stop telling the truth as I see it. If you can point out my error to correct me, fine, but I presume that if you could do so, you would have by now.

I eagerly await your next attempt to obfusticate the question.

 

[Rusha]

If you honestly think that our side is just a bunch of religious hooey without any argument

:thumb: That sums it up quite nicely. As stated before, the ONLY reason you have offered is based solely on your religious bias.

 

[Granite]

:thumb: That sums it up quite nicely. As stated before, the ONLY reason you have offered is based solely on your religious bias.

...which explains why there are fewer and fewer opponents of gay marriage and why it's becoming more and more widely accepted.

 

[zippy2006]

I'll warn you that the history of people telling me what I know is rather poor, and I don't see where this is going to lead to any novel point between us. I'd like to see Chrys respond as he sees fit.

You should've just admitted you were wrong in that reply :idunno:

Why should the government be required to support an ambiguous collection of persons?

Not something I've suggested. All I've suggested is that they are required to offer to all what they offer to some.

My point is that we've shown precisely why that isn't the case. It only holds "all things being equal." Our argument is that they are not. You are simply knowingly begging the question by completely ignoring the opposing argument, it is disappointing and far below you.

Ah yes, the "common sense" appeal. The appeal to that invisible, silent majority that you can always appoint yourself to speak for. Let me know if it ever persuades anyone, will you?

It convinced you just above, when you admitted you weren't saying otherwise. :idunno:

The only reason you've given is only exclusive to heterosexuals with the application of a great deal of magic, aka your fertility "in principle" standard. I can't see why you think anyone would be persuaded by such an appeal.

Who cares? Maybe you ought to address the argument instead of hand waving it away with the original statement you made to Chrys. Instead you completely avoided it. You gave no reasoning why the government should support a random couple, you merely said that the government should support every couple equally. That is merely implicit irrationality on your part in being unable to produce a satisfactory reason why the government has such an obligation to couples in general. At best your answer was "I don't know why they should support couples in general, but they support heterosexuals so they should support homosexuals." Our very point yields the answer that you are unable to give and your bias seems unable to accept.

It is, and it becomes more apparent the longer you try to ply it. Especially as you start relying directly on Catholic propaganda to make your argument. But your earlier aside to TH was sufficient demonstration for me.

:squint:

I will not stop telling the truth as I see it. If you can point out my error to correct me, fine, but I presume that if you could do so, you would have by now.

I eagerly await your next attempt to obfusticate the question.

I did point out your error. It was a small one, albeit annoying. Man up and admit it before you end up trying to run faster than your legs can carry you. lain: It was a completely dishonest begging of the question at hand; I'm tired of it and unwilling to continue unless it is replaced by a somewhat honest attempt at rationality. You are really the only one here from your side who hasn't fallen into question-begging assertions in lieu of argument, I'd prefer you continue in that.

 

[rexlunae]

You should've just admitted you were wrong in that reply :idunno:

No, I've suggested that I was hoping for Chrys to respond. I didn't agree with anything you posted.

My point is that we've shown precisely why that isn't the case. It only holds "all things being equal." Our argument is that they are not. You are simply knowingly begging the question by completely ignoring the opposing argument, it is disappointing and far below you.

Ok, then lets get that straight. It is not enough, under the laws and precedents of our courts, to point to a difference and say that that justifies limiting rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. Else we would never have abandoned racial discrimination in marriage rights. The courts apply a number of formal standards to decide if a limitation is justified. The standard applied in Loving v. Virginia, which is something of a template case here, is Rational Basis review, which ask if the state had a rational basis for the limitation that isn't prohibited. So far, the only reasons you've presented have been based upon unjustifiable generalizations and simple false assertions, and slightly hidden religious preferences, which do not come close to meeting this standard.

It convinced you just above, when you admitted you weren't saying otherwise. :idunno:

When I said I wasn't saying otherwise, I was correcting your mistaken understanding of my point, not conceding anything to you. I really don't see how you can honestly believe that this is any kind of concession.

You gave no reasoning why the government should support a random couple, you merely said that the government should support every couple equally.

I've never said that they should support a "random couple", just that they may not arbitrarily prohibit a couple from marrying. There is a burden to meet and a rational basis for your side to establish.

That is merely implicit irrationality on your part in being unable to produce a satisfactory reason why the government has such an obligation to couples in general.

Why don't you focus on what I've explicitly said rather than concocting "implicit irrationality". You seem to be running out of straw.

At best your answer was "I don't know why they should support couples in general, but they support heterosexuals so they should support homosexuals." Our very point yields the answer that you are unable to give and your bias seems unable to accept.

If that's what you think I've said, I can see why you'd be befuddled. I've given several reasons, bulleted even, that the state supports marriage. But that question is not on the table here. The state supports marriage in any number of ways, both fundamental and peripheral to the institution itself, and that isn't going to change in the gay marriage debate. What I have argued is that per the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution, the government cannot discriminate in offering a benefit or protection without a rational basis. You've given a reason, which was easily defeated, and rather than try to fix the deficiencies in your own argument, you've spent most of the thread trying to confuse the issue.

I did point out your error. It was a small one, albeit annoying.

You've done no such thing.

Man up and admit it before you end up trying to run faster than your legs can carry you. lain: It was a completely dishonest begging of the question at hand; I'm tired of it and unwilling to continue unless it is replaced by a somewhat honest attempt at rationality.

I haven't begged the question in any way that you've been able to demonstrate.

You are really the only one here from your side who hasn't fallen into question-begging assertions in lieu of argument, I'd prefer you continue in that.

I've seen you level that accusation against any number of people here, including me, and in each case, I've been unable to locate the circular reasoning in question, nor have you been able to lay it out for us. So I tend to think it's just the charge you resort to when you sense that you've backed yourself into a corner and can't admit it. If you'd like, you could try to actually demonstrate the question-begging, complete with quotes from actual material that has been posted, in support of the accusation. Otherwise, no dice.

 

[zippy2006]

I've never said that they should support a "random couple", just that they may not arbitrarily prohibit a couple from marrying.

And no one has said that the government should arbitrarily prohibit a couple from marrying, which is precisely why your statement implying the contrary is dishonest and question begging.

I've seen you level that accusation against any number of people here, including me, and in each case, I've been unable to locate the circular reasoning in question, nor have you been able to lay it out for us. So I tend to think it's just the charge you resort to when you sense that you've backed yourself into a corner and can't admit it. If you'd like, you could try to actually demonstrate the question-begging, complete with quotes from actual material that has been posted, in support of the accusation. Otherwise, no dice.

You say that, but you've answered my questions completely differently than Rusha or TH in that ...you've answered them. No doubt you've been assertive at points along the way as any of us are, but your core argument has not been an assertion thus far.

 

[chrysostom]

I suggest you take that up with Congress as a more general question. But given that it is offered to heterosexual couples, it must also be offered to homosexual ones.

so
you don't know why two people living together should get any benefits?

 

[Town Heretic]

so
you don't know why two people living together should get any benefits?

Stable couples are happier and more productive members of society. :thumb:

 

[zippy2006]

There isn't any one reason though. It depends on the specific benefit. In the case of Social Security, the SSA, recognizing that one spouse often supports the career of the other, provides survivor benefits to fill the gap should one partner die. This is good for social stability, because it helps mitigate the disruption of the family due to death. Some benefits are more directly aimed at the union, such as having specific legal prescriptions for the making and breaking of the unions. But I really can't give a comprehensive answer without knowing all the different benefits that the state confers, which I'm not prepared to compile for you. However, I don't know of any for which a fundamental objection could exist to extending them to homosexuals.

What do you mean you know of no such objection? You gave one yourself, "To support and protect the stability of families." Do you agree that this reason is inherently interested in heterosexual couples more than homosexual?

Not absolutely any grouping, no, there are some reasonable standards and reasonable objections to allowing just anything to fly. But I would say that there should be a solid reason to deny a marriage.

But we're circling around now. You gave three points. Supra.

No emotional appeal, I assure you. Just pointing out the very obvious reality of the situation.

Your statement "they are forced to live forever tenuous lives" is not at all clearly rational or convincing or even intelligible. You can support it or drop it.

The "argumentative mistake" (read fallacy) that you've made, repeatedly, and upon continual challenge, is that you've failed to connect the observation that homosexuals cannot reproduce together to any relevant aspect of marriage. You've presumed that we will all make some connection based on the traditional conception of marriage, without stopping to consider what marriage is from a legal perspective. There is no procreative requirement for marriage, nor is the institution irrelevant without procreation, and therefore denying it to homosexuals on grounds of procreation is blatantly unjustified discrimination.

Nonsense. You yourself note that marriage exists "To support and protect the stability of families." Believe it or not, procreative ability is linked to the existence of families in the first place.

I'd call them faux secular arguments at best. Because all the Church cites as a source here is "experience", which is no the same thing as research, and goes on to describe homosexual marriage as "violence", which is an absurd leap. Frankly, there's nothing there to argue with. All I could do is challenge them to show their sources, which of course they aren't going to do because they aren't actually here to argue, and didn't ever intend to found their argument on actual research in the first place. In fact, whereas the "notes" section includes a fair amount of self-reference, it doesn't contain even an attempt to link the claims here to any sort of research. So the best and easiest and most honest approach I have is to dismiss the whole thing, and to inform you that you were doing better, albeit only slightly, when you weren't relying on this document.

Do you disagree that children with one father and one mother are in the best position? If so, please stop being daft.

I disagree. It is, to the extent that the state takes an interest in facilitating people's pursuit of happiness rather than frustrating it. I'm afraid there is no neutral path available with marriage.

Pursuit of happiness? This is too vague for me to comment on. I myself am saying that the state's interest is actually concrete and objective rather than vague and whimsical.

If a Buddhist monk who has taken a vow of chastity cannot form any such relationship, the state would be in no way obliged to let him "marry" his good friend...

Is there any good reason for the state to stop him?

To stop him from receiving positive benefits from that state on the same order as others who are performing a positive service to society? Of course.

Even if you accept that ideal, we don't get to live in a world of ideals, and homosexual often end up raising children. The stability of marriage to their partner would very likely be better than single parenthood, which is likely the only alternative. But rather than generalize about these, and try to encode our sociological assumptions into the law, I think it makes far more sense to let families decide for themselves on issues of family composition. All else is fascism.

You haven't addressed the argument. A marriage environment is more conducive to a child's growth than a homosexual union environment, therefore marriage deserves to be given higher consideration. It's not hard. Putting the two on the same level would be doing violence to children by intentionally ignoring what is best for them.

Your argument here is one of degree that tries to use an evil means to attain a good end.

As long as you assume that homosexual marriage is evil. Which I don't. You're just begging the question.

I'm not at all. All I am saying is that the harm of children is evil. You want to make that harm legal and government supported. Sending a message to society saying that the optimum environment for children and a relatively harmful environment deserve equal support harms children and is therefore evil.

For the government to intentionally put children at such a disadvantage and uphold it as the epitome of society (marriage) would be terrible and false.

Presumptive nonsense. You assume that in all cases the child has an avenue available that would be preferable. This simply isn't the case.

It isn't relevant to my argument. We don't elevate single-parentage to the level of marriage because some kids don't even have one parent. Just because there is no other recourse in a matter does not mean the impoverished situation must be recognized as satisfactory.

It isn't. Marriage is a formally recognized societal union which receives positive benefits from the state and is elevated to the level of a societal norm. Compare that to a contract of any kind and you'll find that they aren't the same thing.

I'm going to quote from the North Dakota Century Code by way of example in the hopes that we can clear up your confusion regarding what marriage legally is. The law of North Dakota is just one standard among many, but the others that I have looked at are substantially similar, and North Dakota's law is fairly clear for the casual read. It's also my home state, so I use it as a common reference point.

NDCC Title 14, Chapter 03, entitled "Marriage Contract"

14-03-01. What constitutes marriage - Spouse defined. Marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between one man and one woman to which the consent of the parties is essential. The marriage relation may be entered into, maintained, annulled, or dissolved only as provided by law. A spouse refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

http://www.legis.nd.gov/cencode/t14c03.pdf

So, right up front, we see that the law explicitly describes marriage as a contract between the parties. The fact that the law imposes a specific set of legal structures does not change the fact that it is a contract. It also limits the participants to be of opposite gender, which I would say is unfairly discriminatory.

I've never said marriage does not entail a contract, I've said (or meant) that is it not merely a contract, that it cannot be reduced to such. If marriage were merely a contract then every contract would be marriage. So what sets marriage apart from a mere contract? Benefits, societal recognition, etc. (the very things I've said) Do you disagree that marriage is more than a contract between two people?

:e4e:

 

[zippy2006]

Stable couples are happier and more productive members of society. :thumb:

Ergo, the government gives people money to make them happy and more productive; marriage is welfare. ...the smokescreen reaches a peak

 

[chrysostom]

Stable couples are happier and more productive members of society. :thumb:

what can we do for single people to make them happier and more productive?

 

[Town Heretic]

what can we do for single people to make them happier and more productive?

Get them married to a compatible mate. lain: There appears to be something about being single that simply doesn't work for most of us. We live longer, healthier and happier lives inside a union.

 

[rexlunae]

so
you don't know why two people living together should get any benefits?

Earlier, I put together a short list of reasons for marriage for Zippy. Not that I would call marriage the same thing as "two people living together". This list was only a few of the most general, and not meant to be comprehensive. I don't think I could put together a complete list quickly, but the point is that if we offer benefits to two people living together who are of opposite sexes, we have to do so for two people living together of the same sex.

 

[chrysostom]

Get them married to a compatible mate. lain: There appears to be something about being single that simply doesn't work for most of us. We live longer, healthier and happier lives inside a union.

that child of yours deserves more protection than any two people living together

I am surprised that you don't seem to appreciate that

 

[rexlunae]

What do you mean you know of no such objection? You gave one yourself, "To support and protect the stability of families."

I can only imagine that permitting homosexuals equal access to the institution of marriage will serve this goal positively.

Do you agree that this reason is inherently interested in heterosexual couples more than homosexual?

No. I believe, moreover, that denying homosexuals equitable treatment serves to undermine families.

Your statement "they are forced to live forever tenuous lives" is not at all clearly rational or convincing or even intelligible. You can support it or drop it.

Heterosexual unions currently may advance to a stage where there are all sorts of legal protections to support them, for the sake of the union itself. Homosexual unions are not afforded these protections in most states.

Believe it or not, procreative ability is linked to the existence of families in the first place.

"Linked to", perhaps, but not "necessary for", regardless of sexual orientation.

Do you disagree that children with one father and one mother are in the best position? If so, please stop being daft.

If children with one father and one mother are in the best position, it hasn't been demonstrated. I'm not convinced. Nice ad hom, BTW.

Pursuit of happiness? This is too vague for me to comment on. I myself am saying that the state's interest is actually concrete and objective rather than vague and whimsical.

I don't think I've ventured into the whimsical in quoting the Declaration of Independence.

To stop him from receiving positive benefits from that state on the same order as others who are performing a positive service to society? Of course.

I don't see where he's performing any greater or lesser service to society, and I think you'll have a very hard time delineating it.

You haven't addressed the argument. A marriage environment is more conducive to a child's growth than a homosexual union environment, therefore marriage deserves to be given higher consideration. It's not hard. Putting the two on the same level would be doing violence to children by intentionally ignoring what is best for them.

There's not a lick of this that's more than speculation.

I'm not at all. All I am saying is that the harm of children is evil. You want to make that harm legal and government supported. Sending a message to society saying that the optimum environment for children and a relatively harmful environment deserve equal support harms children and is therefore evil.

And for any of this reasoning to work, you have to assume that homosexual marriage harms children, and is therefore evil. Begging the question.

It isn't relevant to my argument. We don't elevate single-parentage to the level of marriage because some kids don't even have one parent.

Hard to imagine what it would mean to "elevate single parenthood to the level of marriage". Perhaps you could suggest something that makes some degree of sense as a basis of comparison?

Just because there is no other recourse in a matter does not mean the impoverished situation must be recognized as satisfactory.

And the perfect is the enemy of the good?

I've never said marriage does not entail a contract, I've said (or meant) that is it not merely a contract, that it cannot be reduced to such.

As a matter of law, it is precisely that. The social implications are certainly wider, but not a part of the argument that I'm making.

If marriage were merely a contract then every contract would be marriage.

That's called reversing the implication. Consider:

1. All squares are rectangles.
2. Therefore, all rectangles are squares.

So what sets marriage apart from a mere contract? Benefits, societal recognition, etc. (the very things I've said) Do you disagree that marriage is more than a contract between two people?

No, I don't disagree. But in a strictly legal sense, which is the sense in which equality before the law matters, it is a contract, and for the government to restrict who may enter the contract with whom on the basis of gender is unwarranted.

 

[chrysostom]

why are you all ignoring the child?
and
the protection the child should get?

 

[Town Heretic]

that child of yours deserves more protection than any two people living together

Who said differently? We haven't been talking about children. We've been talking about marriage, which may or might not produce them.

I am surprised that you don't seem to appreciate that

I'm surprised at the dialog you appear to be having in your head and its lack of resemblance to the one we were actually having. lain:

 

[Stripe]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for June 17th, 2011 10:26 AM

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

Take the topic above and run with it! Slice it, dice it, give us your general thoughts about it. Everyday there will be a new TOL Topic of the Day.
If you want to make suggestions for the Topic of the Day send a Tweet to @toldailytopic or @theologyonline or send it to us via Facebook.

Granite is for it. :shut: