| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/14/2008 09:03:24 PM · #101 |
Originally posted by JMart:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Probably opening up a whole nuther can of worms, but concerning the child marriage, someone asked "what if the parents of the eleven-year-old consented to the marriage?" Is this a liberty we should allow? |
There are several interesting 'slippery slope' questions that have been raised with gay marriage. The problem with the child marriage comparison is that there is a wide range of things we don't let children 'consent' to do because we recognize they don't yet have the faculty to make such important decisions and such decisions should not be imposed by parents. This could be the topic of another debate, but it doesn't make a good parallel with gay marriage since gay marriage involves two consenting adults.
Bestiality is also sometimes brought up by conservative commentators "So, why shouldn't a guy be allowed to marry his dog?...." And again, that's not a fair comparison to gay marriage since gay marriage involves consenting adult humans (sorry if I sound speci-ist) and confirming the consent of an animal would be "ruff" at best.
The one comparison that seems valid to me (to open yet another worm can) is polygamy. If we should allow two people of any gender to marry because they are consenting adults in a committed & loving relationship shouldn't we also allow three or four people in a committed & loving consensual relationship to marry? Why the arbitrary number? Personally, I think the interpersonal strife would be too much and I'm very happy with my one lovely wife, but I'm not so sure my preference should be forced on everyone as the law of the land. |
Actually it shouldn't matter if it's a loving relationship. If 5 people want to marry just for tax benefits then they should be allowed. Personally, I think government should divorce itself from marriage altogether, no pun intended. We shouldn't be basing taxes on it or anything of a legal nature.
|
|
|
|
10/14/2008 09:07:19 PM · #102 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
I'm not sure why you're hanging on this whole "moral" argument. People are fighting for legal equality, not moral equality. THAT will never happen. People want to be seen in the same light as everyone else that lives around them, legally and socially. This can't happen as long as we continue to use semantics in order to divide people and then pretend we're all happy about it. |
That's the crux of the issue.
People who feel or think that it's not moral to be gay insist on forcing their values on the rest of us.
There really is no good reason to discriminate against homosexuality.
I have never heard one legitimate argument from someone who is not gay to justify the discrimination.
The reasons are all fear, ignorance, and judgemental opinion.
Two members of the same sex getting married has absoltely no effect on anyone else, so why does anybody think they have the right to tell them they can't?
The arguments of morality, history, "'Cause God says so,", it's all empty and to tell you the truth, since it's one group trying to deprive others of THEIR rights, I think THAT'S immoral!
|
|
|
|
10/14/2008 09:12:13 PM · #103 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
To go back to your blacks and the bus analogy. That was wrong under the constitution because one class of people (blacks) were restricted from doing something (sitting in the front of the bus) another class (whites) was allowed. I pointed out this does not apply to the current argument because no class is being prevented from marriage as it is commonly understood (a union between one man and a woman). It is the definition that is being debated and that is not a matter of equality but one simply of arbitrary decision. |
Let's define Class, as difined by freedictionary.com:
class
Noun
1. a group of people sharing a similar social and economic position
2. the system of dividing society into such groups
3. a group of people or things sharing a common characteristic
Totally disagree. You asserted in the previous post that, "Ah, but marriage isn't restricted to two adults who are of opposite sex." I'm going to have to ask you for some citation there. What are you basing this on?
I think its fair to say that homosexuals fit into this defintion of a class of people. So you are discriminating against a class of people by withholding them the Same rights of a hetero couple, really no different than Spaz's bus analogy. |
Totally disagree. In the previous post you assert, "Ah, but marriage isn't restricted to two adults who are of opposite sex." I'm going to have to ask you to cite some sources here. What are you basing this on? |
Sources? In case it's my wording that is confusing what I meant by my statement is that the law does not prevent a man from marrying a women. Baring they are not related to each other and are not already married(though I agree with Spaz that if all the parties involved are consenting I could care less if multiple peole want to marry each other) then I can't recall them being denied the right to marry. |
|
|
|
10/14/2008 09:16:40 PM · #104 |
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Sources? In case it's my wording that is confusing what I meant by my statement is that the law does not prevent a man from marrying a women. Baring they are not related to each other and are not already married(though I agree with Spaz that if all the parties involved are consenting I could care less if multiple peole want to marry each other) then I can't recall them being denied the right to marry. |
Umm....
If two people of the same gender cannot marry, then polygamy's out, too.
If there are three parties.....at least two are going to be the same gender, right?
So by the same absurd rationale, that would have to be wrong, right?
|
|
|
|
10/14/2008 09:16:57 PM · #105 |
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Sources? In case it's my wording that is confusing what I meant by my statement is that the law does not prevent a man from marrying a women. Baring they are not related to each other and are not already married(though I agree with Spaz that if all the parties involved are consenting I could care less if multiple peole want to marry each other) then I can't recall them being denied the right to marry. |
Heh. This is pretty naive. Then where is the problem? Are you asserting that all over the country people are prevented from marrying with no legal definition or precedent? You should wiki the Defense of Marriage Act. You may not agree with it, but it is the current legal precedent our society has set. (Personally I wouldn't have guessed it was Clinton that signed it.) |
|
|
|
10/14/2008 09:34:24 PM · #106 |
| If you really want to defend marriage, how about making it illegal to marry a second time? Or bar divorces from running for public office? How does barring others from marriage improve my marriage? |
|
|
|
10/14/2008 09:40:08 PM · #107 |
Well, since Jeb seemed to put a whole bunch of words in my mouth, I think I'll reiterate my argument. Things always get all jumbled anyway when it's six people having a conversation.
The concept of marriage has its origins in religion. In that context, there is a long precedent that it is defined as being between men and women (the number, however, may have varied). We just need to understand this as a historical base, then we can put it aside.
In a secular sense, society has the right to define marriage as it sees fit. Currently there is a long precedent of history where marriage has been defined in our culture as between a man and a woman. When gay marriage is argued I have seen two main arguments in support:
1) Liberty. We are guaranteed liberty under our constitution. The argument says that if two consenting adults want to do this, then there is no reason they should not. I believe this argument is fallacious because we have many precedents for limiting liberty in our society. Polygamy was brought up. Wearing seatbelts is another. The bottom line is, if we can demonstrate that our society has tolerated the limiting of liberty then there is no a priori reason we cannot limit the liberty of gay marriage.
2) Equality. The constitution guarantees that one class of people cannot be discriminated against. First, this is not necessarily completely true. Felons are not allowed to vote. This is probably the most pure case of state endorsed discrimination. Other more minor cases have been upheld. Men can't join Curves Body Gyms. No women belong to Augusta National Golf Club. However, the real reason the equality argument fails is one class is not being discriminated against. Currently nobody is allowed to join in union with their own sex and declare it to be "marriage" (well, let's talk federally now, I'm aware there are exceptions by state). Gays aren't. Straight people aren't. No class is being discriminated against.
The argument I would have for gay marriage could be simply called "choice". I would feel that societies have the right to define marriage as they see fit. However, I do not view one definition as being "morally superior" to another. One would need a moral argument to claim such a thing and, as I said above, I've yet to hear one that seems logical. Still, nothing is preventing us from getting together and saying, "Marriage is between two (or more) consenting adults." Maybe we will one day. However, until then, I do not know why I would be considered morally inferior for holding a position against. (Personally I am all for gays having the legal rights possessed by everybody else. I find it odd, however, that there is such a clamor to comandeer the term "marriage" when it is rooted in the very religion that openly professes that homosexuality is wrong.)
Message edited by author 2008-10-14 21:43:06. |
|
|
|
10/14/2008 10:02:41 PM · #108 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well, since Jeb seemed to put a whole bunch of words in my mouth, I think I'll reiterate my argument. Things always get all jumbled anyway when it's six people having a conversation.
The concept of marriage has its origins in religion. In that context, there is a long precedent that it is defined as being between men and women (the number, however, may have varied). We just need to understand this as a historical base, then we can put it aside.
In a secular sense, society has the right to define marriage as it sees fit. Currently there is a long precedent of history where marriage has been defined in our culture as between a man and a woman. When gay marriage is argued I have seen two main arguments in support:
1) Liberty. We are guaranteed liberty under our constitution. The argument says that if two consenting adults want to do this, then there is no reason they should not. I believe this argument is fallacious because we have many precedents for limiting liberty in our society. Polygamy was brought up. Wearing seatbelts is another. The bottom line is, if we can demonstrate that our society has tolerated the limiting of liberty then there is no a priori reason we cannot limit the liberty of gay marriage. |
It isn't fallacious. The idea that historical precendents should count for future growth is inane at best. The whole, "This is the way it's always been" or "This is the way it was done before" is simply another way of saying, "This is my ball, you can't play". Unless it can be *PROVEN* that there's a danger in allowing something (like seatbelt laws, which like it or not have been proven to save lives over and above statistical anomalies in which they contribute to deaths), then there is no reason to limit it.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
2) Equality. The constitution guarantees that one class of people cannot be discriminated against. First, this is not necessarily completely true. Felons are not allowed to vote. This is probably the most pure case of state endorsed discrimination. Other more minor cases have been upheld. Men can't join Curves Body Gyms. No women belong to Augusta National Golf Club. However, the real reason the equality argument fails is one class is not being discriminated against. Currently nobody is allowed to join in union with their own sex and declare it to be "marriage" (well, let's talk federally now, I'm aware there are exceptions by state). Gays aren't. Straight people aren't. No class is being discriminated against. |
You're trying to argue apples and oranges. Felons aren't a class of people, they are a group of people that have committed crimes and have had certain rights removed. Just the very thought of anyone comparing convicted felons with homosexuals is a bit disturbing. As for your other two examples, these are examples of private organizations setting certain rules. When government, whenever it happened, took an active role in the legality of marriages, all claims to it being a religious ceremony belonging to the church (which would be a private organization or group of), became null and void. Marriage is not something that belongs to a private organization now. Therefore, it does not apply to the same rights to limitations or refusal of access. Simply put, people are being discriminated against, it's just easier to hide it than many other societal discriminations of generations past.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The argument I would have for gay marriage could be simply called "choice". I would feel that societies have the right to define marriage as they see fit. However, I do not view one definition as being "morally superior" to another. One would need a moral argument to claim such a thing and, as I said above, I've yet to hear one that seems logical. Still, nothing is preventing us from getting together and saying, "Marriage is between two (or more) consenting adults)." Maybe we will one day. However, until then, I do not know why I would be considered morally inferior for holding a position against. (Personally I am all for gays having the legal rights possessed by everybody else. I find it odd that there is such a clamor to comandeer the term "marriage" when it is rooted in the very religion that openly professes that homosexuality is wrong.) |
I don't recall anyone ever saying anything about moral superiority. The reason the fight is over the term, is because the people fighting against people being able to have the same rights and legalities as everyone else continue to hold that term as better than something else. That's where the moral superiority lies.
As far as I'm concerned, this is like a game of baseball, where a kid that acts different or talks different wants to play, but you don't like the fact that they are different, so you let them play but you give them a smaller glove, or bat, or you make them play with their shoe-laces tied. You can act all proud of yourself that you're letting the kid play, but in the end, you're still discriminating against them. |
|
|
|
10/14/2008 10:07:52 PM · #109 |
How much tax income would state and federal governments loose if we legalized gay marriages nationwide? I wonder if that might have anything to do with so many states passing laws against it. I'm not saying that it has, but it wouldn't surprise me a bit.
Personally, I think all of these anti-gay marriage laws and statutes are reprehensible. Whom exactly does it hurt? Why should we prevent any person or group of persons from doing anything they want, as long as their actions cause no harm to others? Doesnât anybody remember these wordsâ¦?
âWe hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.â
 Mousie
Enjoy your wedding. I wish you both the best of luck.
|
|
|
|
10/14/2008 10:14:35 PM · #110 |
Originally posted by Mick:
How much tax income would state and federal governments loose if we legalized gay marriages nationwide? I wonder if that might have anything to do with so many states passing laws against it. I'm not saying that it has, but it wouldn't surprise me a bit. |
Actually wasn't there up until recently a "marriage penalty"? The deduction that was allowed for a married couple was less than two times an individual deduction. I think it's gone now though. |
|
|
|
10/14/2008 10:20:59 PM · #111 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I find it odd, however, that there is such a clamor to comandeer the term "marriage" when it is rooted in the very religion that openly professes that homosexuality is wrong.) |
Marriage is common to many cultures and religions.
I'm surprised to hear your culture-based arguments when you know full well that the U.S. is a melting pot of cultures. You are defending a tyranny of the majority. |
|
|
|
10/14/2008 10:23:43 PM · #112 |
K10, you are getting a little ahead of yourself there. Your argument basically boils down to saying, "you are saying 'I don't think so'. Well, I'm saying 'I DO think so'. So there."
The idea that using past precedent to decide legal issues is "inane" is not only laughable, it's completely wrong. The idea of legal "precedent" is entrenched in our judicial system. And where do you get the moral or legal code that one must prove danger to limit liberty? Did you make that up? Currently my liberty to walk around is limited by property rights, although it isn't necessarily dangerous for me to walk on my neighbor's grass. Some limits are based on safety, but that's probably a small minority.
Felons appear to be a "class" according to trevytrev's definition of "a group of people or things that share a common characteristic". We have decided that class does not have the right to vote. That's pretty arbitrary in my view, but it's what we've decided.
Finally, I'll just end with my scratching my head at your claim that once government decided it had a say in marriage that suddenly religion failed to have any claim. What, may I ask, is this based on other than your own opinion?
|
|
|
|
10/14/2008 10:25:38 PM · #113 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
I'm surprised to hear your culture-based arguments when you know full well that the U.S. is a melting pot of cultures. You are defending a tyranny of the majority. |
The notion that, in a democracy, the greatest concern is that the majority will tyrannize and exploit diverse smaller interests, has been criticised by Mancur Olson in the The Logic of Collective Action, who argues instead that narrow and well organised minorities are more likely to assert their interests over those of the majority. Olson argues that when the benefit of political action (e.g. lobbying) are spread over fewer agents, there is a stronger individual incentive to contribute to that political activity. Narrow groups, especially those who can reward active participation to their group goals, might therefore be able to dominate or distort political process.
A similar argument is made against the very term "Tyranny of the majority". According to this argument the majority was never at power in any system of government excluding Athenian Direct Democracy. If this is the case then the majority has never proven itself as a tyranny in any situation and the entire concept mis-named. The correct term should therefore be "Tyranny of a minority acting as if in the interests of the majority". This view is popular amongst adherents of Direct democracy who claim that this term is meant to scare people away from Direct Democracy and subdue them to minority rule of representatives or other systems of government.
Don't think I'm that smart. That was wiki... :)
Am I going to have to listen to all the McCain supporters crying aloud about a "tyranny of the majority" this November? Just because there is a majority opinion, the idea that they are automatically acting like tyrants doesn't apply. If we held the opposite, wouldn't we be able to cry about the "tyranny of the minority"?
Message edited by author 2008-10-14 22:31:01. |
|
|
|
10/14/2008 10:29:41 PM · #114 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
In a secular sense, society has the right to define marriage as it sees fit. |
Why would society define marriage as between a man and a woman unless it explicitly considered homosexuality a bad thing? No reason. Your historical arguments are ridiculous because there have been many cultures throughout history with different types of relationships which may or may not classify as "marriage." If you go to history with a definition of marriage as a man and a woman, then yes, those are the only marriages you will find. But that's a tautology.
The reason this is even an issue is because there already exists a society (a culture) where millions think this is acceptable.
So let's be clear about this. You're not arguing for a definition of marriage. You're saying that the culture declares homosexuality to be WRONG, a deviation. You're free to make that claim about our culture. And, shamefully, a vote might be evidence that you are right. But a simple majority does not constitute a culture, or a society. Look up "tyranny of the majority." |
|
|
|
10/14/2008 10:31:59 PM · #115 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by posthumous:
I'm surprised to hear your culture-based arguments when you know full well that the U.S. is a melting pot of cultures. You are defending a tyranny of the majority. |
The notion that, in a democracy, the greatest concern is that the majority will tyrannize and exploit diverse smaller interests, has been criticised by Mancur Olson in the The Logic of Collective Action, who argues instead that narrow and well organised minorities are more likely to assert their interests over those of the majority. Olson argues that when the benefit of political action (e.g. lobbying) are spread over fewer agents, there is a stronger individual incentive to contribute to that political activity. Narrow groups, especially those who can reward active participation to their group goals, might therefore be able to dominate or distort political process.
A similar argument is made against the very term "Tyranny of the majority". According to this argument the majority was never at power in any system of government excluding Athenian Direct Democracy. If this is the case then the majority has never proven itself as a tyranny in any situation and the entire concept mis-named. The correct term should therefore be "Tyranny of a minority acting as if in the interests of the majority". This view is popular amongst adherents of Direct democracy who claim that this term is meant to scare people away from Direct Democracy and subdue them to minority rule of representatives or other systems of government.
Don't think I'm that smart. That was wiki... :) |
I see you already did. My point remains: a simple majority does not constitue a culture, especially in what is supposedly a "free country" that btw should not be legislating against polygamy. Seatbelts save lives. What does oppressing homosexuals save? |
|
|
|
10/14/2008 10:34:45 PM · #116 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
In a secular sense, society has the right to define marriage as it sees fit. |
Why would society define marriage as between a man and a woman unless it explicitly considered homosexuality a bad thing? No reason. Your historical arguments are ridiculous because there have been many cultures throughout history with different types of relationships which may or may not classify as "marriage." If you go to history with a definition of marriage as a man and a woman, then yes, those are the only marriages you will find. But that's a tautology.
The reason this is even an issue is because there already exists a society (a culture) where millions think this is acceptable.
So let's be clear about this. You're not arguing for a definition of marriage. You're saying that the culture declares homosexuality to be WRONG, a deviation. You're free to make that claim about our culture. And, shamefully, a vote might be evidence that you are right. But a simple majority does not constitute a culture, or a society. Look up "tyranny of the majority." |
I respectfully disagree and take some mild offense in the way you paint me. My main argument is that society gets to decide how it will view legal unions. I then said any decision is valid because they are all arbitrary. I mentioned nothing about homosexuality being wrong. I resent that and ask that you clarify yourself or point out where I said such a thing. |
|
|
|
10/14/2008 10:35:41 PM · #117 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
I see you already did. My point remains: a simple majority does not constitue a culture, especially in what is supposedly a "free country" that btw should not be legislating against polygamy. Seatbelts save lives. What does oppressing homosexuals save? |
The textile industry? Too many gay marriages and we have too many couples sharing clothes. It would probably devestate the economy. ;) |
|
|
|
10/14/2008 10:40:15 PM · #118 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
K10, you are getting a little ahead of yourself there. Your argument basically boils down to saying, "you are saying 'I don't think so'. Well, I'm saying 'I DO think so'. So there."
The idea that using past precedent to decide legal issues is "inane" is not only laughable, it's completely wrong. The idea of legal "precedent" is entrenched in our judicial system. And where do you get the moral or legal code that one must prove danger to limit liberty? Did you make that up? Currently my liberty to walk around is limited by property rights, although it isn't necessarily dangerous for me to walk on my neighbor's grass. Some limits are based on safety, but that's probably a small minority.
Felons appear to be a "class" according to trevytrev's definition of "a group of people or things that share a common characteristic". We have decided that class does not have the right to vote. That's pretty arbitrary in my view, but it's what we've decided.
Finally, I'll just end with my scratching my head at your claim that once government decided it had a say in marriage that suddenly religion failed to have any claim. What, may I ask, is this based on other than your own opinion? |
Past precedent when it comes to societal change is not the same thing as legal precedent, in any way, shape, or form. If it was, we'd all still be living in caves. I can't believe you'd even make that comparison.
I'm not claiming one must prove danger to limit liberty, I'm saying that using arguments that have done so in order to make your point about something that hasn't is foolish. Also, humanity has progressed based on generally making changes based on the good of the people (but haven't always succeeded). However, when arguing for something, I'd rather have "It doesn't hurt anyone" on my side more than "It's always been that way."
Your use of semantics to stick to your felon argument just proves that you don't really have much more to argue with.
What basis indeed? Government took an active role in marriages. Taxation, fees, laws, etc, all based on the legalities of marriage. Spouses have rights outside of people that aren't spouses in many things, including but not limited to death, estate, illness, decisions for children, and finances. As long as the term "marriage" is used to connect these things in civil ceremonies, it is going to be what same-sex couples are going to want to be able to say and use. It's pretty simple. Know that I am NOT saying that a church should be forced to marry someone. That part of it being a private organization should be upheld, but the term itself was commandeered LONG before same-sex couples wanted to marry. Only now that certain people are feeling threatened do they suddenly seem to care. |
|
|
|
10/14/2008 10:45:12 PM · #119 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well, since Jeb seemed to put a whole bunch of words in my mouth, |
Um, no, I didn't.
It wasn't about you or in response to you in any way, I try very hard not to do that in general, and I REALLY try not to engage with you because I would find it exhausting.........8>) |
|
|
|
10/14/2008 10:47:41 PM · #120 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Past precedent when it comes to societal change is not the same thing as legal precedent, in any way, shape, or form. If it was, we'd all still be living in caves. I can't believe you'd even make that comparison.
|
You're kidding, right? If we are not arguing the legal definition of marriage, then what are we arguing? Am I simply saying that two men don't have the right to live together, have a party to declare their love, bicker over who left the mess in the sink, and then go to bed? I'm pretty sure nobody is stopping Louis or Mousie from doing any of that.
Frankly I just debate to see what an argument boils down to. It helps me form my own views and helps me judge the strength of the opposing view. I'll call it quits for now. It seems the major argument against is still a form of the "equality" argument, but I didn't see any refinement there. The real takehome message, it seems, is that lots of people on DPC are for polygamy. |
|
|
|
10/14/2008 10:48:42 PM · #121 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well, since Jeb seemed to put a whole bunch of words in my mouth, |
Um, no, I didn't.
It wasn't about you or in response to you in any way, I try very hard not to do that in general, and I REALLY try not to engage with you because I would find it exhausting.........8>) |
I take that as a compliment. Believe me, Louis, Gordon, Shannon and co are totally exhausting when we argue about God. ;)
I guess I took it to mean me because I was the only voice in the room at the time. :) |
|
|
|
10/14/2008 10:55:52 PM · #122 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The real takehome message, it seems, is that lots of people on DPC are for polygamy. |
Why is polygamy necessarily a bad thing? I can see how it might be bad when viewed in the form it has previously taken, where women are more like cattle, but I don't see any moral argument that justifies monogamy between a man and a woman as the sole basis for a successful union. |
|
|
|
10/14/2008 11:01:24 PM · #123 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It seems the major argument against is still a form of the "equality" argument, but I didn't see any refinement there. |
Could you elaborate on that a tad?
Argument against? Isn't the equality issue the argument FOR gay rights?
And not discriminating against gays?
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The real takehome message, it seems, is that lots of people on DPC are for polygamy. |
That's kinda scary.
As someone who has strived VERY hard to keep one partner happy, the thought of doubling that effort, or more, makes me cringe!.......8>)
Message edited by author 2008-10-14 23:02:15. |
|
|
|
10/14/2008 11:02:44 PM · #124 |
| Just an observation that in Canada, same sex marrige is federally mandated. So same sex couples have the same rights in all of Canada, not just one or two provinces. It's a federal law. (I know K10D corrected his post, but just need to get this fact seen.) |
|
|
|
10/14/2008 11:11:22 PM · #125 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Why is polygamy necessarily a bad thing? I can see how it might be bad when viewed in the form it has previously taken, where women are more like cattle, but I don't see any moral argument that justifies monogamy between a man and a woman as the sole basis for a successful union. |
You think you would be comfortable with sharing your wife, body and mind, with another man? |
|
