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

[chrysostom]

So let me get this straight. A given number of people do not think the purpose of marriage is to protect children and that alone has harmed children. Do I have that right? I don't think the purpose of marriage is to protect children either. Did I just cause a kid to get hurt?

only if you are credible

 

[kmoney]

No. I say that as someone noting that it's a bit of a circle to suggest that marriage is more than a contract because it's treated differently and then suggest that the difference is marriage.

I wasn't going in any circles. Based on how marriage is being said to be more than a contract, corporations would be too.

You shouldn't roll your eyes. They might get stuck like that.

No. I don't know how you'd quantify that distinction.

Economically?

I'm saying that marriage is one sort of contract. That incorporation is another. That they both receive benefits and are treated differently, as befits their differing natures, but that only distinguishes between contract types. A man and a woman may marry without children or any religious inference and be bound by nothing more than the stated terms of their contract. This is the foundational truth here. Whatever else is added is just and entirely that, however important the person adding it may feel that addition to be, however indispensable to his moral mechanism.

So then, if the matter before us is contract, then to abridge any adult citizen's right to contract as freely as another is prima facie discriminatory practice and is bound to fail as a matter of law absent fairly high thresholds of justification. It may take time to overcome the inertia of established prejudice and to match the principle with the outcome, but it is inevitable. As inevitable as the failure of the segregated South, however deeply held the beliefs that sponsored it.

To hold this part is not, as some would have it, to support sin, but to support each man's right to his own conscience so far as the exercise thereof does not impinge on another's right.

I think most of this is a response to an argument I'm not making. :idunno:

 

[kmoney]

Well, my argument is that the benefits aren't integral to marriage. They're separate statutes that can change by legislative action without the involvement of any specific couples, and without really fundamentally changing the relationships formed by civil contract between spouses.

Well, it's of course true that the government can make changes to their part of the contract; they can legislate the marital benefits away, but as of now they exist and they go right along with marriage.

What do you take to be integral to marriage?

Marriage is the personal relation rising out of a civil contract between the parties.

But it isn't just any civil contract. It is a specific agreement between a man, a woman, and the government.

A homosexual couple can go form a contract for certain things but it isn't marriage and it won't include all that marriage brings.

Well, if the question is, 'how do you stop gay couples from receiving the same benefits from marriage that other couples do?', I'd say that the answer is that you don't, and legally can't, the Defense of Marriage Act notwithstanding.

Right. You just prohibit them from getting married at all.

As for separating the benefits from marriage itself, I'd observe that marriage is typically covered by dedicated chapters of state law, whereas the benefits are often defined by federal law, and are almost always at least separate law from marriage.

I should probably try to read some state marriage laws.
When you separate out the federal benefits, what comes with state marriage?

Of course, it's always been true that there are small minorities of people who marry specifically for the benefits. This seems unavoidable, but not unique (or even common) to homosexuals by any means.

I didn't intend to say otherwise.

But he's defining a middle ground that doesn't exist. For one thing, homosexual couples are prohibited from exactly the contract in question by the laws of most states, and changing that would give them access to marriage in all its glory. Also, if we say that they have the same legal right to contract that heterosexuals do, then the only possible way to keep them from the statutory benefits is exactly the kind of invidious discrimination that the Fourteenth Amendment is intended to prohibit.

I agree.

 

[kmoney]

This thread makes me want to :bang:

:chuckle:

 

[rexlunae]

Well, it's of course true that the government can make changes to their part of the contract; they can legislate the marital benefits away,

You say that as if it's normal that a contract exists between three parties, where one of them does not exercise any specific discretion in forming it, and with that party able to amend the contract unilaterally by a legislative process.

But as TH has pointed out already, this is exactly the same relationship that the state always has to contracts. The power to regulate.

but as of now they exist and they go right along with marriage.

I don't know of a single subsidy that government offers that's written to imply that any of them are supposed to be controlling of the institution of marriage.

What do you take to be integral to marriage?

The union of two people.

But it isn't just any civil contract.

Right, it's a specific kind of civil contract.

It is a specific agreement between a man, a woman, and the government.

Minus a few general restrictions, such as the prohibition of incest, the state exercises absolutely no discretion in forming the contract. The discretion is entirely on the couple, who are the real parties to the contract. And each restriction the government places on the union must meet Constitutional standards. This is why we rejected the standard that some states had that the union could only exist between people of the same race, and it is ultimately why we should reject the restriction that it may only exist between people of opposite gender.

A homosexual couple can go form a contract for certain things but it isn't marriage and it won't include all that marriage brings.

Sure, they can form a contract. They can sell land to one another, they can buy things together, they can assign power of attorney. But they aren't permitted the sort of world-recognized union that so many heterosexuals enjoy, and that's unfair, unwarranted, and unjustified by our highest laws.

Right. You just prohibit them from getting married at all.

How is that any less discriminatory or more just?

I should probably try to read some state marriage laws.

Not a bad idea.

When you separate out the federal benefits, what comes with state marriage?

Well, that varies a lot by state. If you just look at the chapters of law that define marriage, it's often little more than a definition and a set of regulations for how the marriage may be performed.

If you take a broader look, and consider state laws that reference marriage, you find things like prohibitions of spousal abandonment in many states. It often impacts how welfare works in a number of ways. It obviously impacts prenuptial agreements, and access to divorce.

Many of these things have the potential to save the state money rather than costing it money. For instance, the fact that a person is typically financially responsible for their spouse, it may prevent the spouse from collecting welfare, or it may afford the state someone to reimburse them for welfare paid.

Previously I quoted to Zippy the bits of state law from my home state that define marriage, with a link to the relevant chapter. Not a difficult read.

I didn't intend to say otherwise.

I agree.

:up:

 

[chrysostom]

Minus a few general restrictions, such as the prohibition of incest, the state exercises absolutely no discretion in forming the contract.

so two brothers should be allowed to marry
but
not a brother and sister

right?

 

[rexlunae]

so two brothers should be allowed to marry
but
not a brother and sister

right?

Um, no. Why would that follow? Incest is incest.

 

[zippy2006]

As for points 2a-b, marriage has been described by the Supreme Court as a basic right.

:chuckle: You act as if they agreed with you in its definition.

To deny it to make it easier to withhold certain government benefits from homosexual couples is not only directly in conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment, but it is also contrary to the Court's view of what marriage is.

That's as nonsensical as it is assertive.

I'm done trying to argue against bias, it's no wonder it gets nowhere, and I don't have the current means (internet) to continue the discussion anyway. :idunno: :wave2:

My points have been made. You think marriage is a relatively arbitrary conferring of benefits upon a group (currently a pair but sure to increase) of people. Good luck with that. :thumb:

 

[zippy2006]

Rather, I've set out points and argued them, whatever your opinion. You mostly live to declare, as you do here, and do so in contradiction to the facts of the matter.


So you'll admit to a fault, if only when you can claim company in it (and I don't agree with you about rex) and use it to point to a larger perceived fault on my part. Telling.


Given the smell of so much of what you're offering here it seems a reasonable enough positioning, metaphorically speaking.


You know, the whole unsupported ad hom bent would probably look less like a petulant swipe if you coupled it with actual examples and without hurling "pride encrusted", charges of "intellectual dishonesty" and "self reflective ignorance" along with them, to say nothing of the ever popular pointy-headed intellectual attack.


Well, we can't all have your Christ like demeanor and practice...at least not if the Romans are going to be left with any work.


Supra.


Then you need a better sense of direction to match an elevated practice. My hope is that time may be your ally in that regard, but who knows?

:e4e:

Case in point.

 

[zippy2006]

Light

Light

Archbishop Dolan's Defense of Marriage and Family Continues

 

[rexlunae]

:chuckle: You act as if they agreed with you in its definition.

In a very fundamental sense, they do. And the most relevant question hasn't yet been posed to them. See the decision in Loving v. Virginia, and try to tell me that you can't see where the same logic wouldn't apply here.

That's as nonsensical as it is assertive.

So, not at all. Actually, it's a rational inference from law and precedent.

I'm done trying to argue with bias,

...as you've run out of straw.

it's no wonder it gets nowhere, and I don't have the current means to continue the discussion anyway. :idunno: :wave2:

I noticed that.

My points have been made.

And answered.

You think marriage is a relatively arbitrary conferring of benefits upon a group (currently a pair but sure to increase) of people. Good luck with that. :thumb:

Funny, after all this time, you still can't even present my argument anything like accurately. How do you even hope to address it in such a state? It takes a lot of nerve to accuse me of bias given the above.

 

[chrysostom]

Um, no. Why would that follow? Incest is incest.

so you don't think two brothers should be allowed to marry?

 

[rexlunae]

so you don't think two brothers should be allowed to marry?

No, not really. Didn't Granite post a link to you earlier about incest?

 

[Town Heretic]

Case in point.

Declaration without support. So you're making the wrong case.

 

[chrysostom]

No, not really. Didn't Granite post a link to you earlier about incest?

why is two brothers together incest?

 

[Town Heretic]

I wasn't going in any circles. Based on how marriage is being said to be more than a contract, corporations would be too.

And I'm suggesting that advantages from the contract don't make the contract more of one or more than one. I set out the corporation as a more obvious example of how advantages are given by virtue of contracts and meant for that to establish the understanding that this "more" business is mistaken.

Every contract carries a benefit in its establishment. At the least end of that is the enforcement of terms by the state and remedies for breach.

Economically?

In that case, corporations get a better treatment than marriages, though I don't see the value in it as applied to our consideration.

I think most of this is a response to an argument I'm not making. :idunno:

I wasn't so much responding to an argument as setting out my part for you particularly. I don't know if you've bought into this more business of not, but if so then the rest is important. If not, it's clarification for those who might be giving the matter a once over.

And to jump into marital benefits over other contracts aimed at paralleling: spousal privilege isn't something that can be established else.
:e4e:

 

[rexlunae]

Archbishop Dolan's Defense of Marriage and Family Continues

Mostly by playing the victim, which is a rather odd sight when it's a representative of the largest church in the world.

If the experience of those few other states and countries where this is already law is any indication, the churches, and believers, will soon be harassed, threatened, and hauled into court for their conviction that marriage is between one man, one woman, forever, bringing children into the world.

Oh the irony.

 

[chrysostom]

do you think brothers should be allowed to marry?

 

[GoingGoldenWCU]

For it.

 

[some other dude]

But just for gays, right?

I mean, we shouldn't be forcing heterosexuals into same sex marriage, right?