Posted on 05/17/2004 4:20:41 PM PDT by Gelato
KEYES: Well, unhappily, I think what's involved here is an assault on the very idea of what marriage is all about--and this is forgotten in the discussion. People talk as if this is somehow about homosexuals. No, it's not. Their situation and condition is being used by folks who are assaulting the very meaning of marriage, itself.
As I often explain to people, you go back, even in societies like ancient Greece, where homosexuality was practiced, and tolerated, and accepted, and so forth and so on, if you had walked up to somebody on the way to the Athenian assembly and said, "I'm going to propose a same-sex marriage law," they wouldn't have gotten angry with you, they wouldn't have been outraged or indignant, they would have laughed in your face.
And the reason for that laughter would have been the commonsense understanding prevalent throughout human history that marriage is about procreation, and if you in principle can't procreate, then marriage has no relevance for you, it's not significant, it's not an institution in which you can in fact participate.
I think the fact that we have lost sight of what is at the heart of the institution of marriage--now, I'm not talking here about personal relationships. I'm talking about a social institution, because, after all, when you have in society, through the mechanism of law and government, an institution that regulates a relationship, there has to be a social reason for that. It is not done in the case of mere friendships or other intimate relations in our society. A matter of fact, I think most of us realize that our friendships aren't the government's business.
Why is marriage, this most intimate of personal relationships, also the government's business? Because marriage leads to procreation, and procreation, throughout the history of human society, has given rise to claims and counter-claims and expectations and obligations that have caused serious feuding and conflict and difficulty for the peace and order of society.
So, in order to deal with those consequences, societies have established an understanding: when will a relationship constitute marriage? When will parents have certain obligations toward their children? When can children have certain expectations of their parents? When must society accept and recognize the authority of parents over children? And so forth and so on.
This was all in relationship to the ultimate and essential purpose of marriage, which is procreation--not, as some of these people are arguing, making people feel better about their sexual relationships or their love or anything else. You don't need a legal institution for those kinds of purposes.
Alan Keyes on For the People with Chuck Harder
Theocracy means rule by hierarchical religious officials or rules of a particular religion. It does NOT mean basing the laws of society on the general principles stemming from religion. People like to confuse the two.
So you call the fact that the majority of the people of the US do NOT want two homosexuals playing "marriage" to be legal "mob rule", but it's okay for 2-3% of the population (and many homosexuals do NOT want "gay" marriage) to shove it down the majority's throat?
You said:
"Your definition of parents, your definition of marriage, and your definition of deviancy."
Your use of falsity in arguing is getting rather tiring. The definitions I use have been in use since time immemorial and have been accepted in our country (and all others, I may add) for millenia. If you or other homosexual marriage promoting fools want to change the meanings, it's up to you to prove those meanings should change. It's not up to me or other conservatives to prove why they shouldn't be changed.
You used this phrase:
"you will fail to realize your ideal future" - this makes me wonder if you are a native English speaker (in which case you're kind of excused). Or do you just like to make verbiage salad and toss meangingless phrases around?
Maybe you've read too much psycho-babble books, or too much Herbert Marcuse.
P.S. I don't belong to a church.
And you should seriously think about stone masonry. Verbiage gets in the way, and focusing on heavy stone and sharp tools would really help focus your mind on something other than itself.
So here's a question for you: If one-ten-thousandth of a percent of the population wanted to sing praise to the goddess of frogs, and the remaining 99.999% of the population was unanimously and collectively opposed to it for reasons that it was threatening to their belief in the one true sky god, would it be OK or not OK for the frog worshippers to continue their practices?
Your use of falsity in arguing is getting rather tiring.
And your failure to argue logically is too. At the moment, I could really care less about your statements. I'd be happy with a single false argument from you. At least it would an argument.
Maybe you've read too much psycho-babble books, or too much Herbert Marcuse.
Maybe I don't so there.
P.S. I don't belong to a church.
At least you are a little more personalized from my perceptive. Are you married?
And you should seriously think about stone masonry. Verbiage gets in the way, and focusing on heavy stone and sharp tools would really help focus your mind on something other than itself.
Can I assume that you are a stone mason then? You seem to know a lot about the trade. Are you trying to recruit me?
The frog worshipers could continue such practice **BUT** they would not have the right to demand that anyone else acknowledge its legitimacy.
You said:
"So here's a question for you: If one-ten-thousandth of a percent of the population wanted to sing praise to the goddess of frogs, and the remaining 99.999% of the population was unanimously and collectively opposed to it for reasons that it was threatening to their belief in the one true sky god, would it be OK or not OK for the frog worshippers to continue their practices?"
A perfect example of false arguing. Not comparable at all. To make your argument useful, the frog goddess worshippers would have infiltrated the media, the government, the schools, the foundations, large corporations, many churches and religious institutions, the medical and psychologist professions, and the insitutions of higher education. The frog goddess worshippers would then make it mandatory for the non-worshippers to listen to lectures about the glories of such worship, would be condemned for pointing out its dangers (also for the analogy to work, frog goddess worshipping would have to entail unnatural, unhealthy practices), the non-worshippers children would be taught about it and encouraged to try it. Additionally, the frog worshippers would be proselytizing by way of media - entertainment and "news" that frog goddess worshippers are not only to be accepted as worthy members of society and should worship publicly but anyone speaking out against it is mentally ill and hateful.
But your analogy is worthless because worshipping a frog goddess is merely a silly fantasy, whereas homosexuality is a pernicious practice that violates the natural use of the sex organs, spread noxious disease at a rate not comparable to STDs spread between men and women, is associated with increased risks of mental illness and drug and alcohol abuse, partner abuse, and child molestation.
So your analogy is worthy nothing.
I think stone masonry would be good because you'd have to stop mentally masturbating and concentrate on something other than self-worship of your mind. One slip of the stone or the tool, and you'd break a bone.
BTW, I'm not going to "debate" with you any more. There are a lot of interesting discussions going on in which I can discuss with rational people.
But marriage isn’t about having children, remember? Isn’t that what you said? We’re not supposed to think of marriage in terms of what it might mean to children and procreation. Right? It’s about the love between the people seeking the marriage. Isn’t that what you believe?
No. I'm sorry I wasn't clear. My fault so here goes. STATEMENT: Children are a big part of marriage, but not a requirement, and does not encompass all of marriage. ARGUMENT: Lots of people get married with no intent or possibility of having or adopting children. EXAMPLE: In "The African Queen", Hepburn and Bogart ask the Nazi captain to marry them first before he executes them both minutes later. I have yet to hear any Christian argue against this type of marriage. EXAMPLE: When it comes to vows, and I'm going out on a limb here, only that Catholic weddings (and only some of them) actually use the word "children" in their wedding vows. Do you remember your wedding vows (assuming you're married) or a friend's wedding vows? Did the word "children" ever come up? If so, have you ever been to a wedding where the vows omitted the word? I have. If you have also, did you protest? For the rest of you, this is what I call an argument.
The opposite [Even mice and bugs have incest taboos via pheromones. So let's dispense with incest] is true. In nature, incest is quite often acceptable and desirable. In domestic animals, incest is common, even intentionally.
No. Incest is not desirable. See: Incest and Breeding. Just because you find examples of it, like suicide, does not mean it is desirable, nor does it mean the opposite is true. It is not an argument. Incest is not-optimal for all sexual creatures' DNA.
Look at the pedigree of any purebred animal. You cannot find one without incest. Incest is used in animal breeding to increase the likelihood of the inheritance of certain traits. In fact, without incest, different breeds of dogs or cats could not exist.
CONFIRMATION: I found a reference that supports your statement: The Myth of Canine Incest -- Breeding Methods Examined. ARGUMENT: But you know what? Pedigree breeding is artificial. All dogs have descended from wolves some 13,000 ago. Without human intervention, purebred dogs would quickly become mutts by their natural aversion to incest. Just because humans like incest in dogs, doesn't mean the dogs intuitively like it. See: Is Incest Common In Gray Wolf Packs? which says: In sum, our results show that within wolf packs, mated wolves are rarely related as siblings or as parent-offspring. FYI: Little Jeremiah, you'd probably call this government research paper "unintelligible gibberish" too.
(By the way, mice have no incest taboos: http://www.horns.freeserve.co.uk/mouse4.htm They will mate with any relatives.)
Thanks for the link, but this behavior is observed in the laboratory, where the taboo has been bred out of the mice accidentally, but not so much in nature. Google Search "MHC, the Major Histocompatibility Complex". From: Why Incest Isn’t Best, claims that mice are the greatest cited example of incest because of artificial laboratory experiments, and is not a reflection of what mice really do in natural habitats.
Hey, you know what Gelato, this might just be the line of questioning you need to explain why gay people are the way they are? Perhaps our society, by definition an artificial one, has bred out some of the homosexual taboos. Maybe the population increase and density has done that. Just a thought. Still doesn't make it right to persecute them.
Using the pattern set by nature as a guide, certainly a little incest wouldn’t hurt, right? Some degree of it is natural, and in some cases in nature it is beneficial. Why should the small minority who wants to practice incest be legally barred from the benefits of marriage, if marriage is not prohibited to gays? This question is especially valid when children are excluded from the marriage argument.
Now you are starting to get logical! You are giving me a taste of my own medicine, and I like it. Incest taboos are the best supporting argument that marriage laws exist for the sake of children. If I could prove that gay marriages increase the chance of producing genetically defective children, which I (a tax payer) will be force to subsidize, then I would vote against it. But there is that AIDS thing isn't there? I'd hate to stoop so low to argue that AIDS is a much shorter problem, less economical problem than defective children. The gay people that get AIDS tend to pay for their own treatment, and die soon. And AIDS is not just a "gay" thing.
Denying this couple the right to marriage is a violation of American freedom--wouldn’t you say? “All we want is to be left alone,” Carrol Ferdinandsen said in an interview, “so we can finish our lives together.” If homosexuals can marry, what reason do we have, legally, to prohibit marriage for this couple?
OK. Long post. As I said to TexasTransplant, I wish you were my neighbor too. I don't think I can argue against your statement. Not sure if I want to. I haven't yet. I was arguing that our laws constitutionally allow constraining the number of people in a marriage (polygamy) but not about the sexual nature of the people (homosexually), and certainly not the race of the people (interracial marriages). Is it unconstitutional to constrain the relationships between (two or more) people, such as brother and sister, doctor and patient, incarcerated felons, etc? Good question! If yes, then it cannot be an argument against prohibiting sexual nature because being gay is an attribute of an individual, whereas relationships are attributes of plural sets. If no, there's the Ninth Amendment getting in the way. Our Constitution is all about protecting individual rights, and does very little more than the First Amendment to protecting the rights of groups.
Congress won’t have to. The courts will make that law for them. Do you think that would be constitutional or unconstitutional for the courts to act in this way?
I believe it is unconstitutional for them to do that. Courts (and other judicial branches) do not create laws. That's the role of the legislative branch of our state and federal government. Now the courts often bend the law, but that's up to the Supreme Courts to resolve conflict. This is an honest question. Is it illegal for gays to get married? Or is it just a bill submitted to the house? http://www.nolo.com/lawcenter/ency/article.cfm/objectID/6DF0766E-C4A3-4952-A542F5997196E8B5 Someone quote me a federal law please. I believe that if the law does not say you cannot do it, then you can do it.
The latter is not unconstitutional, though I would change it to "union," not "relationship."
Agreed.
If the denial of marriage to homosexuals is inherently “persecution,” how do you justify “persecuting” bisexuals who would like to marry both a man and a woman?
Refer to above.
The constitution of Massachusetts states that all laws dealing with marriage are to be handled by the governor and the legislature, not the courts. Yet, the high court got involved and legalized gay marriage. Supporting their ruling is antithetical to the idea of enforcing the law, wouldn’t you say? As Dr. Keyes points out, their ruling violated the separation of powers. Do you support this kind of interference by the courts in general, or just when it comes to decisions you like?
If what you say is correct, then I am against it. If it breaks the law, then it is illegal. But I don't think that was the case, and my facts may be wrong. I think what happened is that governor and legislature created laws in the past. These laws did not explicitly state that gay people could not get married. The courts interpreted the laws in favor of gays. If this is not what the law was meant to do, then the legislature needs to change the law. But it is OK for the courts to interpret the laws -- that's what they do, and why they exist.
The Constitution does not say we have rights based upon what “technology” has to say. That’s a dangerous theory for rights. We either have rights or we don’t. There is either an equal right to any kind of marriage, or there is not.
You are right. We do have rights. But rights change, and new laws are created. There are laws for changing the law. We used to have a prohibition law. Then it was repealed. We used to have laws for slave trading. Then they disappeared. We currently do not have a law that prevents people from smashing asteroids into comets. Someday in the far off future, Congress might just create one. But until they do, the Ninth Amendment says I can go out and smash heavenly bodies together, regardless of whether I am technologically constrained by a gravity well.
You will have no such option to vote on this issue. The matter will be decided by the courts, and they will use the precedent that has been set by the arguments for gay marriage you have supported. They will be consistent in their logic, and base their decision on the premise they have already established.
Voting is not the only legal method for fighting an idea. I can fight it by testing and challenging people near me, on chat groups, and in forums. Perhaps one of my children might one day participate on that court.
The Constitution does not allow the courts to write law, only to apply it. The constitutional principle of separation of powers was violated by the Massachusetts high court. Do you support that?
Yes. I'm with you on that! You probably have me at a disadvantage on what actually happened in Massachusetts. If they broke the law, hang 'em high. If all they did we interpret the law, escalate it to the Supreme Court. I think that the fact that GW wants to get a Constitutional Amendment, means they probably just interpreted the law. Please prove otherwise and cite links.
The premises I accept allow the logical rejection of marriage between same-sex couples, incestuous couples, bisexual couples, and polygamist couples. The premises you accept necessitate the granting of marriage rights each and every one of these relationships--unless you allow discrimination as another premise, in which case I would like to hear your reasoning.
I had hopes that my arguments said otherwise. In either case, premises are not an argument, as I can disagree with them. But I think you were on the right track for arguing. That is, you tried to find common ground with your antagonists (me) and then applied Aristotelian logic rules to show contradiction. Did my arguments contradict myself (a very bad thing for me), or did my premises merely contradict yours (something I can live with)?
Your turn.
Isn't that a tad bit tautological? I mean, to begin a definition with a noun (Freedom is), and then proceed to qualify it with its adverb equivalent (Freely)? I'm sure you and I would agree that in its weakest syntactic form, Freedom is the state of being free. I was hoping for something more pragmatic. Even something semantic would be better.
In addition, it appears that you are claiming that if you don't have the ability to seek it, or know it according to some "higher authoritative power", then you cannot be free. I'm smiling. I can only guess your definition of "the good" is what "God says it to be". In this country, people differ on what "the good" is -- even good Christians. That's why we give "freedom" to people to pursue their definition of it.
To answer your question, I think most of these references are on the right path: Definition of Liberty, with Liberty is self ownership being the decisive "economic" difference between capitalism and statism. Liberty is freedom from coersion, whether from one person or from a democratic vote certainly sums up our Republic and Rule by Law philosophy. Bearing to this thread, I pick Liberty is determining for yourself how to live your life and Liberty is the only social arrangement consistent with the Golden Rule. It's that last one that supplies most of my debating ammunition.
Your thoughts?
Isn't that a tad bit tautological?
The last "freely" is added for emphasis. You can disregard it without losing the meaning of the definition.
In addition, it appears that you are claiming that if you don't have the ability to seek it, or know it... then you cannot be free.
You are correct.
You cannot seek or desire the good if you don't know what's good.
I'm smiling. I can only guess your definition of "the good" is what "God says it to be".
No need to guess, I'll tell you. The good of a living thing is its proper object. For example, the good or proper object of a tree is to grow and reproduce. The good of a bird is to fly. The proper object, the good, or the final end for human beings is eternal life with God. A properly ordered life directs all lesser functions toward this end. Therefore, at times, eating an ice cream cone might serve a man's good or final end, and at other times it may not, if he's a glutton, for example.
In this country, people differ on what "the good" is -- even good Christians.
The truth is independent of an individual person's understanding of it.
That's why we give "freedom" to people to pursue their definition of it.
This is political freedom, not true, absolute freedom. The degree of this kind of freedom that is granted to citizens is a matter for prudential judgement. Some freedoms, like freedom of conscience, should not be violated by the state. Other "freedoms," like freedom of speech, which Americans take for granted, should not be absolute. Examples include pornography and slander. However, the state can legitimately restrict political speech if it serves the common good. It's not an absolute right.
To answer your question, I think most of these references are on the right path: Definition of Liberty, with Liberty is self ownership being the decisive "economic" difference between capitalism and statism.
This is the error of libertarianism. It's close to the truth, so it's not easy to see. No one has an absolute right to self-ownership. No one has a right to harm himself, for example. As a rule of thumb, it works. But it lays the groundwork for false intellectual judgements regarding "victimless crimes" such as pornography, homosexual "marriage," sodomy laws, prostitution, etc.
Liberty is freedom from coersion, whether from one person or from a democratic vote certainly sums up our Republic and Rule by Law philosophy.
Again, this is a rule of thumb. But no one has the liberty to harm the common good. The first principle of the State is the promotion of the common good, as the preamble to the Constitution states.
Bearing to this thread, I pick Liberty is determining for yourself how to live your life...
Taken absolutely, this is false. This is license, not liberty. I would define liberty in the political sense as freedom from coercion from the state in making decisions that should be the province of the individual or family.
...and Liberty is the only social arrangement consistent with the Golden Rule.
True liberty, as defined above. The definition is consistent with the principle of subsidiarity, which is a corrollary of the Golden Rule.
Then it seems more like the definition of wisdom rather than freedom. How about substituting question in place of know?
The truth is independent of an individual person's understanding of it.
That is the definition of absolute truth. I just fear the day when some other more populous religion that is quite antagonistic to Christians starts using these "absolute" definitions to their benefit at the disadvantage of Christians. Their numbers are increasing, not to claim that they will overtake us. Aren't you a bit disturbed by that thought, that maybe there is a way that another larger group of people can use these arguments to retaliate? Is this a violation of the Golden Rule?
How do you spot the wolf in sheep's clothing? How do you know you are not making a big mistake?
No one has a right to harm himself, for example. As a rule of thumb, it works. But it lays the groundwork for false intellectual judgements regarding "victimless crimes" such as pornography, homosexual "marriage," sodomy laws, prostitution, etc.
But what if a large group of atheists, get in to power and define "religion" as false, or better yet, detrimental to society? It has happened over there. I hear lots of arguments that sound good on the surface as to why they claim to be right. Are we not drawing too much comfort on the fact that 75% of America claims to be Christian? It used to be much higher?
I also see that you misspell judgment exactly the same way I do. I cannot seem to un-learn that habit. Thanks for the response. I like the way you think.
“On what basis can society justify involving itself, through government, in marriage--and to what extent is that involvement necessary?”
Do we really need governmental sanction for the union between man and wife? What of gay marriage or other alternatives? Would this matter be best resolved by removing marriage from the government’s business altogether? Since marriage is a religious concept, why not leave it entirely up to churches?
Certainly this country was founded by a religious population (mainly Protestant) but the forefathers were smart enough to realize that Protestantism was invented (rebelliously) because religion was tightly coupled with government politics (namely European), and consequently wrote provisions in the U.S. Constitution to keep the two separated. However, removing religion from the government did not destroy the purpose of the government--only limit it. Government still functions to promote the general welfare of the people (un-religiously), define and enforce law (un-religiously), and secure Liberty to its citizens.
To answer that, let’s take a look at what the result would be if marriage abode by the laissez-faire, libertarian principle. What would happen if the government left marriage alone? Obviously, gay marriage would instantly become legal across the board. In fact, ALL forms of marriage would become legal. Polygamist marriages, consensual incestuous marriages, same-sex marriages, bisexual-polygamist marriages--even child marriages would be permitted by the state.
I agree. Government should be involved with marriage -- for legal matters. So should churches, family, friends, ..., everyone you can muster up that has a vested interest in marriage. The more the merrier. But some people just go to Las Vegas, file for marriage online, or just let Common Law kick in. After marriage, the government is just a party that is supposed to be unbiased when vows are broken. But everyone gets involved because its a lot easier to keep your vows (a kind of psychological protection or insurance) when you realize that it's not just a promise to your spouse, but also a promise to everyone else around you that you value, such as family, friends, workers, and if you wish, God, priests, et al. For my marriage, I've also included myself as part of the promise I made.
Put this proposition to the American people, and the first question they would ask would be: “Even child marriages?” To that, we’d have to answer: “Well, yes. We forbade the government from touching this issue anymore, remember? Government can’t get involved. We left it up to the churches--and there’s a separation of church and state, don’t ya know?” This will not be an acceptable answer to 99.99% of the American public. They will demand immediately that government get involved and put an age limit on marriage. And there you have it. With that, marriage moves from a religious principle untouched by the state, to a societal one with governmental supervision. Marriage becomes a state interest.
Again, I agree. Government should be involved in marriage; especially to prevent child marriages, and polygamy, which I assume exists for legal simplification (or logistics) of divorce, dispute settling, and filing joint taxes.
So I believe that the real purpose of marriage, historically, is to sanction sex by society -- not to promote children -- that side effect is an implied probability. Our conservative Catholic history originally defined marriage as "the only legal permission for having sex." You pretty much got one shot at it with one person, with the exception of death. Any violation of this rule was subject to the most harsh punishments--humiliation, excommunication, banishment, imprisonment, and often death. Later, annulment was invented for marketing purposes. Soon after, the Protestants discovered that they couldn't commit to a single person for a lifetime, and decided split off and change the religion (well, invent a new flavor) that kept all the previous tenets of marriage, but changed the implied meaning of till death do you part to till one of you decides to publicly call the whole thing off. The words in the vows remained unchanged, but the meaning changed. Marriage was still a sanction for sex. You were not allowed to have premarital sex, or allowed to have sex with someone that you were not legally given permission.
Today, modern countries have separated the laws for legal sex from the laws for legal marriage. I have yet to find a country in which the legal age for marriage does not match the legal age for sex. In the USA, its 18. Here are some modern US laws that prohibit sex: * you cannot have sex if you are under 18 * you cannot charge money for sex * if you are married and you have sex with someone other than your spouse and your spouse complains, your spouse can punish with divorce most economically in his or her favor. You see, we've gotten quite lax with our laws about sex. But the government gives other benefits for marriage. Your spouse has implied Power of Attorney, without having to visit a lawyer. If one dies, or is hospitalized, the other gets to make tricky decisions, inherit wealth and property, assume tax benefits, and continue getting retirement funds. None of this has anything explicitly to do with sex. It's all about property ownership. Some old couples get married just so one spouse can inherit tax-free and assume retirement funds. Children are another reason for marriage -- not solely to create them, but to have guardianship over them. The surviving spouse gets the children, regardless of whether the children are his or hers.
Do you accept this premise, when it comes to governmentally-imposed age limits?
Yes. But I think the big point that I was trying to make in this entire debate was that (1) Alan Keyes was trying very hard to convince me that marriage was all about children, and I could name many reasons (in previous posts) why this is not just the case, (2) I don't believe that it is right for the government today to discriminate against one's sexual preference in defining today's usage (not ancient definitions) of marriage, providing that two gay couples are in all other respects legally allowed to marry; i.e. at legal age, not already married, etc. I drive this point home by pointing out that today gays legally can * adopt children * get Power of Attorney * have sex with each other * kiss in public * hold hands in public * have television shows dedicated to their gayness * publicly announce that they are gay * sue companies and the military for discriminating against them, etc. (3) The government already promotes and subsidizes children by giving legal guardians tax benefits (and welfare) based on the number of children they have, and not on whether the parent is single, or married, or gay, etc. It is this point that George Bush (who I love) will never get a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as proposed.
In lieu of all these facts, common practices, and society mores, I find the argument against gay marriage hypocritical at least. Personally, no one else's marriage threatens my marriage. Mine is covenant with God and is therefore immune to all this fluff. If it were not, then certainly the concept of legal divorce would be a million times more threatening to my marriage than the concept of gay marriage.
I'm interested in where your line of reasoning will continue now that I have answered your questions. Your turn...
Let’s analyze that thought. Which legal matters do you mean?
Power of attorney? You don’t need marriage for that. You could legally grant anyone close to you that privilege.
Inheritance after death? Technically, marriage isn’t needed for this one, either. Look at Raymond Burr. After his death in 1993, his homosexual “partner” inherited the wine orchard and other properties. They didn’t need marriage for that. As you know, any person could be named in a will.
Medical decision-making? That’s what health-care proxies have been established for. Non-married persons can name a health-care proxy to make healthcare decisions in case of emergency. Again, marriage isn’t needed here.
Co-ownership of property? This can be easily drawn up in a contractual agreement, without marriage.
Social Security and welfare benefits? This might be one minor case in which marriage has a benefit denied to unmarried partners. However, if this is the purpose for marriage, can you imagine the romantic wedding proposal, “Marry me, and we’ll share our Social Security checks”? “Marry me, and I’ll put you on the government dole”? The persons involved might as well stay single, and collect their government checks independently.
It makes no sense to say marriage is instituted by society solely for financial reasons, when a romantic couple is better off financially without getting married. There are great benefits to being unmarried. Unmarried couples pay less in federal taxes, are not automatically responsible for one another’s debts or medical bills, and share a lower Social Security burden. In addition, concerns about shared income are resolved by legal contracts.
In the long run, unmarried partnerships are legally less messy than marriage, given the lack of responsibility involved. Once you split, you take what’s yours, along with your share of co-owned property--just as in any business relationship. Unmarried couples are more likely to enter into legal agreements concerning property, medical wishes, and legal authority. These benefits have contributed to the rise of unmarried cohabitation.
With all these benefits to being unmarried, who needs marriage, after all? What is the purpose of governmental involvement in marriage?
Government should be involved in marriage; especially to prevent child marriages, and polygamy, which I assume exists for legal simplification (or logistics) of divorce, dispute settling, and filing joint taxes.
Polygamy, along with child marriages and incestuous marriages, were outlawed before the “filing of taxes” existed. Prior to the 20th century, paying taxes was a simple affair with no correlation to marriage. Simplicity in filing taxes was, it’s safe to say, far from the minds of Congress when, in 1862, it outlawed polygamy in Utah. Divorce was also very rare at the time, and was not a factor in the debates against polygamy. The settling of disputes was also a non-factor in outlawing alternative marriages. Simplifying disputes hardly seems a justifiable basis for making laws that discriminate against whole groups of citizens. Discriminatory laws must have a basis greater than convenience.
That aside, let’s assume you are correct. Let’s assume that the only reason to outlaw polygamy is because it complicates legal disputes, divorce, and taxes.
If this is true, we are saying the most complicated kinds of marriages should be outlawed. Guess what? That doesn’t bode well for same-sex marriages. Marrying persons together of the same sex tops the list of complications. At least in polygamy, matters of child custody could be settled as in traditional, two-parent marriage. The dispute in polygamist divorce would center on the birth parents--a relatively simple matter for the court to decide. As we have seen in gay relationships, however, child custody battles can be extremely complicated. In a lesbian relationship, there’s not just the two women fighting over custody, there’s also the father. Do the father’s rights take precedence over his ex-wife’s gay ex-partner’s rights? (Can you even follow that statement?) What if that father has been absent in his child’s life? What if the biological mother was the bread-winner, while her gay ex-partner stayed home and raised the kids? Does the gay ex-partner have any claim to the children she has been raising, even though they technically do not belong to her?
Same-sex marriage is inherently messy legally--the most messy legally, in fact, of all potential unions.
Obviously, you can no longer believe your own proposition that the legality of alternative marriages depends upon the complications they present. You’ll have to drop that premise.
Can you think of any other legal basis for discriminating against those wanting polygamy, underage marriage, and incestuous marriage?
So I believe that the real purpose of marriage, historically, is to sanction sex by society -- not to promote children -- that side effect is an implied probability.
Implied only in the man/woman relationship, you forgot to say.
Our conservative Catholic history originally defined marriage as "the only legal permission for having sex."
As does the Word of God in scripture.
But that’s beside the point. Here you’re bringing religion into the argument, as though there was no inherent state interest in the union. Do you see a state interest, a societal purpose, for government to sanction marriage? If marriage is just about romance, and if financial issues can be resolved by legal contracts, government should get out of the way, as it does in all our other friendships and associations. Wouldn’t you agree?
Today, modern countries have separated the laws for legal sex from the laws for legal marriage. I have yet to find a country in which the legal age for marriage does not match the legal age for sex. In the USA, its 18.
You’re uninformed on this point. Several states allow marriage for 16- 17-year-olds, without changing laws against statutory rape. A number of states allow marriage at age 15, under court sanction. Missouri implies marriageable age can be even lower, with court sanction. South Carolina allows marriage for girls as young as 14, and New Hampshire at age 13. Texas allows it for age 14-17 under fairly lenient conditions, with no court sanction required.
http://usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/teen_marriage_laws/index.shtml
I don't believe that it is right for the government today to discriminate against one's sexual preference in defining today's usage (not ancient definitions) of marriage
Here, again, you will need to modify your premise. You have already amply established that, contrary to this statement, you do, indeed, believe that government can “discriminate against one’s sexual preference.” You give preferential treatment to same-sex unions, yet oppose plural unions, underage unions, and incestuous unions, even when you declare some of these unions do no harm. You oppose these marriages, all the while stating, “Personally, no one else's marriage threatens my marriage.”
I would like a non-contradictory, judicious argument from you explaining why gay unions can be supported, while other “sexual preferences” remain opposed by law.
I drive this point home by pointing out that today gays legally can * adopt children * get Power of Attorney * have sex with each other * kiss in public * hold hands in public * have television shows dedicated to their gayness * publicly announce that they are gay * sue companies and the military for discriminating against them, etc.
The point you make undoes your point. It shows that society has no need to offer homosexuals marriage. They already enjoy more rights than polygamists, who live in seclusion, and who have been subject to laws barring them from the right to vote and to run for office, and even from being aided indirectly by others.
Either we offer marriage to all who want it, or we have restrictions. If we have restrictions, there must be a ethically sound, justifiable basis for such discrimination. What is it?
Congratulations for your considered, rational, cool headed responses. I gave up on this discussion some time ago. Too hot headed to deal with delusional people who refuse to see truth. I hope the person you responded to reads them and pays attention while doing so.
Your responses are superb and deserve to have a:
BTTT!
I guess I'm not following your argument how polygamy marriages would some how be easier for the government to handle than a 2-party gay marriage. It seems that all your arguments against gay marriages equally apply to second straight marriages; i.e. where two divorced straight couples remarry bringing along children. I'd need a specific example. Here's one. A man adopts a child from Romania -- all legal. Later, the man turns out to be gay and has a gay partner. I'm not sure where the original biological parents get involved. Here's a second scenario. A man and a woman have children. One of the parents die. The second parent later takes up a gay partner. Regardless of whether you believe that this is contradictory to "your" beliefs, how is this scenario different (or more messy) than had the surviving parent remarried straightly?
When referring to polygamy, I was merely stating that the legacy government revenue computer systems only have one field for "spouse's SSN" and would cost billions to overhaul for polygamy rules.
As we have seen in gay relationships, however, child custody battles can be extremely complicated. In a lesbian relationship, there’s not just the two women fighting over custody, there’s also the father. Do the father’s rights take precedence over his ex-wife’s gay ex-partner’s rights? (Can you even follow that statement?) What if that father has been absent in his child’s life? What if the biological mother was the bread-winner, while her gay ex-partner stayed home and raised the kids? Does the gay ex-partner have any claim to the children she has been raising, even though they technically do not belong to her?
But the condition for "messiness" existed a priori regardless of whether marriage was involved or not. For example, let me rewrite your entire argument changing the gayness to straightness:
As we have seen in
gaystraight relationships, however, child custody battles can be extremely complicated. In alesbianstraight relationship, there’s not justthe two womena man and a woman fighting over custody, there’s also the father. Do the father's rights take precedence over his ex-wife'sex-partner’sboyfriend's rights? (Can you even follow that statement?) What if that father has been absent in his child’s life? What if the biological mother was the bread-winner, while hergay ex-partnerex boyfriend stayed home and raised the kids? Does thethe gay ex-partnerex-boyfriend have any claim to the children she has been raising, even though they technically do not belong toherhim?
Isn't that just as messy? If you meant that the gay partners were married, then just assume that the boyfriend/girlfriend were married as well. It doesn't make it any less complicated. Some parties are legal guardians and some are not. Their marital status is irrelevant.
I come from the school of thought that the only purpose for government is to create and enforce laws whose intended benefit to society require complete cooperation. Of all the benefits that citizens bring to our great country, only a small amount of these benefits require everyone to participate. So I'm one of those small government advocates. For example, if I mow my lawn, it makes my house look good, my neighborhood look good, and hence improves our entire society, but only by the amount that I contributed. If I choose not to mow my lawn, this does not prevent you from marginally improving society by mowing your lawn. Therefore, mowing lawns is beneficial to society but does not require uniform cooperation. So federal government should stay laissez faire. If it weren't for this type of definition of government utility, we'd become slaves to some small oligarchy's rule of what they thought was beneficial, just as the USSR fell trap to that. However, some local home associations think otherwise and consequently make local rules about home ownership, which members can optionally choose to become members, and later choose to leave. But our debate is about federal law. In contrast, society believes (and proves) that counterfeiting US dollars is something that everyone must uniformly agree not to do. One person violating this law does far more damage to the system than just their part. So federal government gets involved with strict penalties.
To continue, let's assume that marriage is beneficial to society, fine. If I choose to get married, and you choose to stay single, any benefit my marriage is to society is beneficial only by the amount that it contributes. If you choose to stay single, society is only less served by the marginal benefit your marriage does not bring to society. Otherwise, the federal government would mandate that everyone over a certain age must get married. But this isn't the case. So government should stay out of it. And that really is the case. Your marriage (or singleness) does not affect my marriage anymore than the gay couples gayness down the road affects it. And with all the ways modern straight couples have bastardized marriage today, the only purpose I see in government getting involved with marriage is sort of a convenient catch-all wrapper legal implication that settles disputes when tragic things happen.
You’re uninformed on this point. Several states allow marriage for 16- 17-year-olds, without changing laws against statutory rape. A number of states allow marriage at age 15, under court sanction. Missouri implies marriageable age can be even lower, with court sanction. South Carolina allows marriage for girls as young as 14, and New Hampshire at age 13. Texas allows it for age 14-17 under fairly lenient conditions, with no court sanction required.
I stand corrected. Thanks for the fact. So why does the government require that the PARENTS give consent for these types of marriages? Why not ask for my opinion? Why not just make a federal law that prohibits it? Because the parents are legally responsible for what these kids do. In this case, I can see that some parents want to be young grandparents. But hey, there's tons of 14 year unwed mothers. I think I'm getting out of my league here. In any case, I think your facts best supports my original claim, that the feds should just stay out of it all and leave it up to local groups, states, and churches.
Maybe that's one thing we're missing today - hard statistical facts that compare how married straight couples somehow make society better, regardless of whether they have children or not, and how this compares to single parents with kids, gay parents with kids, gay couples without kids, etc.
I would like a non-contradictory, judicious argument from you explaining why gay unions can be supported, while other “sexual preferences” remain opposed by law.
I don't know if I can give you one. But I bet I win the argument in the long run when gay people start getting legally married in one state after another as time passes, because you cannot give a good reason why they should not. We have scientific studies that having sex at too young an age can be harmful throughout all of history. We know that incest is "bad" for DNA and evolution. Not surprisingly, we find these two taboos in every country. Violations of these taboos can cost us lots of tax money trying to correct it later. I cannot see the problem with polygamy so long as all partners involved consent. Not question, we find many country do support polygamy. We are starting to see countries supporting gay marriages. This observation alone supports my claim that gay sex is not equal to or worse than incest.
My claims are this:
The point you make undoes your point. It shows that society has no need to offer homosexuals marriage. They already enjoy more rights than polygamists, who live in seclusion, and who have been subject to laws barring them from the right to vote and to run for office, and even from being aided indirectly by others.
Nope. I believe in "negative" constitutional powers, as opposed to the "positive" constitution of the ex-soviet union. The constitution exists to limit government -- not citizens. Laws do that, and most laws should be state-created.
Also, polygamists are not illegal in America. The laws prevent them from obtaining legal marriage recognition in the eyes of the state. Since they do not have the paperwork, they are not married by state definition. This does not mean that a man cannot live 25 women that he claims to be his wives, nor does it mean that he will be arrested for doing so. The state just doesn't recognize the marriage in a civil dispute. Polygamists do not live illegal lives in seclusion. Any polygamy arrests usually have minors involved.
Custody disputes favor the mother, for the reason that she is the one who traditionally nurtures and cares for the children. Gender-wise, gay relationships create a complicated scenario that does not exist in other custody battles. In the example I gave, the gay biological mother was filling the role of provider (father), while her gay partner was filling the role of stay-at-home mom. Given the court precedent that sides with the person who nurtures the children (the female parent) who gets custody? What about the father? An even more complicated scenario involves adoption. What happens when two homosexual men adopt a child and then “divorce?” On what basis does the court weigh custody there?
These are cases that present uncharted difficulties to the court--difficulties not existing in any other disputes.
Things get even more complicated when one considers the disproportionately high number of partners a homosexual has. On average, the typical homosexual man has 100 - 500 partners. Shockingly, 28% take on a thousand or more partners. A child raised by married homosexuals can be expected to have a ridiculously high number of step-parents, many of whom might want custody or visitation rights.
No other demographic group can compare with such instability.
In case you think marriage would change that pattern of infidelity, look at the Netherlands, where same-marriage is legal. Studies reveal homosexual men stay married on average for 1.5 years. Only 1.5 years! While married, these men have an average of eight outside partners. “Commitment” among unmarried homosexual men actually fares better, at five years, yet these men assume several outside partners during their relationship.
Not only does this present difficulties for the courts, it puts an undesirable burden on children. A court looking after the best interest of the child should have to consider this kind of atmosphere as a negative--or at least less than ideal--environment for raising children.
A messy proposition, indeed.
By contrast, a polygamist custody dispute would obviously be simpler, since it involves only the biological parents. In this situation, the courts would follow precedent, which is that the biological mother has the upper hand. Likewise, incestuous and child marriages would be easier to resolve than same-sex marriages, because they would be centered on biological parental rights. This is fairly simple--unless they begin to involve members of the same sex. Then it gets complicated.
It seems that all your arguments against gay marriages equally apply to second straight marriages; i.e. where two divorced straight couples remarry bringing along children.
Not so. Unlike in gay relationships, the scenario you cite is rather clear-cut. The biological mother would be favored for custody, unless she is proven “unfit” to the court, in which case the biological father would be awarded custody.
I'd need a specific example. Here's one. A man adopts a child from Romania -- all legal. Later, the man turns out to be gay and has a gay partner. I'm not sure where the original biological parents get involved.
Tricky, isn’t it? And who gets the child when the gay men leave each other--which statistics say is inevitable?
Here's a second scenario. A man and a woman have children. One of the parents die. The second parent later takes up a gay partner. Regardless of whether you believe that this is contradictory to "your" beliefs, how is this scenario different (or more messy) than had the surviving parent remarried straightly?
Bringing a gay factor into it complicates what would otherwise be a more simple situation, legally. That’s a fact. In a typical case of a dead parent, obviously the living parent takes custody, unless he or she is challenged in court as unfit. Extended family is a second-tier option. Non-relatives are often third, or not even considered. However, when you add the gay factor to the mix, traditional case law is thrown out the window. Although non-related heterosexual partners are rarely awarded parental rights, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin ruled in 1995 that non-biological gay ex-partners can be granted visitation rights. This week, the Washington Court of Appeals ruled that non-biological gay “parents” can seek custody of their ex-partners’ children.
Given the 100 - 500 average partners a homosexual man has, the amount of ex-partners seeking parental rights over the same children will potentially number not a few.
When referring to polygamy, I was merely stating that the legacy government revenue computer systems only have one field for "spouse's SSN" and would cost billions to overhaul for polygamy rules.
Ah! So, you’re saying we can’t allow polygamist marriages because forms, paperwork, and computer systems don’t already accommodate them. In other words, the traditional understanding of marriage is so entrenched in society, it would be too expensive to change. Correct?
You equally apply this line of reasoning to all forms of marriage, right?
Consider for a moment the kinds of changes required to abolish thousands of years of understanding about human relations, all to accommodate same-sex marriage. ENORMOUS overhauls of forms, paperwork, and computer systems will be necessary to make marriage non-gender specific. I can’t even comprehend all the changes that would be needed to integrate same-sex marriage into the culture, government, legal apparatus, and the business world.
Not every form tidily asks for a “spouse.” In fact, when homosexuals attempted to marry in San Francisco, they ran into a slight hitch. The marriage certificate asked for the name of the husband and the name of the wife, along with the maiden name.
And that brings up another complication. What about surnames? Who takes on whose surname, and who keeps their maiden name?
When the child of lesbians is asked for his mother’s maiden name in order to get a bank account, what will he say? When the child of homosexual men is asked for his mother’s maiden name, what will he say?
How does the term “maiden name” apply to homosexual men? How does the term “wife” apply to homosexual men?
Of course, these terms can’t apply. The only answer will be to abolish their use. No more husband and wife. No more maiden names. Those words are now discriminatory. They imply that heterosexual unions are favored above homosexual unions.
We’ll have to revamp dictionaries, school textbooks, history books, record-keeping, genealogical forms, businesses--all to accommodate this revolution in marriage.
While we’re at it, we might as well add a few extra entries for plural spouses--which, ironically, some historical records already have provided, as in genealogy. Making this small allowance would be easier than revamping society to accommodate same-sex marriage. After all, it has existed before. Polygamy was practiced for roughly 40 years in our nation’s territorial history, and cohabitational forms of it continue to this day. Now that the courts have invented same-sex marriage, legalized polygamy is around the corner, with no protective barrier now against it.
It would be naïve to think marriage can simply be redefined overnight for gays, but not for any others! It’s also naïve to think that redefining marriage to allow same-sex couples is an easy, non-expensive task.
But the condition for "messiness" existed a priori regardless of whether marriage was involved or not.
Very true observation--with, however, an a posteriori proposition being more descriptive of my method below.
From experience, we can conclude that homosexual relationships are inherently messy legally, even without marriage.
Take the case in Colorado, for example. Two lesbians adopted a child from China. They broke up after eight years. One of the women retained full custody, while the other was denied all contact, even visitation rights. Ironically, the reason she was refused visitation rights is that she became a born-again Christian, and the judge decided that no person can have visitation rights who might teach the child negative things about the other parent’s lifestyle.
Then, there’s the case of the toddler with three legal parents. (Or is it four?) It seems a gay man impregnated a lesbian, with the contractual agreement they would share the child. After giving birth, the woman and her partner ran off with the child. The man sued for custody, and won--at least partially. He still has to share the child with the child’s “mothers.” No word yet on whether his partner gets to have a role.
Finally, there’s another complicated example that defies case law. In California, a woman’s fertilized egg was implanted in her lesbian partner. The partner had twins as a result. Upon the souring of the couple’s relationship, full custody of the twins was granted to the woman who birthed the twins, despite the fact that the other woman was the biological parent.
Such complex matters do not exist in other relationships, yet they are commonplace with homosexual ones. I conclude that homosexual relations are the most complicated of all. Do you still hold to the premise that marriages be outlawed if they are not simplistic?
For example, let me rewrite your entire argument changing the gayness to straightness:
I hope someone appreciates this statement.
As we have seen in gay straight relationships, however, child custody battles can be extremely complicated. In a lesbian straight relationship, there’s not just the two women a man and a woman fighting over custody, there’s also the father. Do the father's rights take precedence over his ex-wife's ex-partner’s boyfriend's rights?
Assuming the woman in your example was granted custody after her first divorce, she would retain custody after the second divorce or relationship. That is firmly established in case law--at least for heterosexuals.
Should her fitness be challenged in court, her first ex-husband would be first in line for custody, followed by extended family. Boyfriends are pretty low on the totem poll in custody battles. Ex-spouses not related to the children might fare slightly better, but just a notch.
By contrast, courts are beginning to give more favoritism to non-related gay partners than to non-related heterosexual partners. Gay-related custody battles therefore will not likely ever have a coherent rule to follow. They will be tedious affairs, decided case-by-case, without universal principle.
If you meant that the gay partners were married, then just assume that the boyfriend/girlfriend were married as well. It doesn't make it any less complicated. Some parties are legal guardians and some are not. Their marital status is irrelevant.
When it comes to homosexuals, yes, you are right. Their marital status is irrelevant.
(A response to your other comments is forthcoming at another time.)
Just because YOU can't figure it, doesn't mean the courts can't. I can guess by your previous posts that you have very little experience with the gay community. Most gay couples will not have children. Those who do, may have had them before they took on a partner. FEMALE does not imply NURTURER. There are heterosexual males that are more nurturing than heterosexual females. There are heterosexual males that are more feminine than heterosexual females. How do the courts decide in that case? They just do. I know personal examples where the courts gave custody to the father. Gay couples, regardless of sex, have feminine partners and masculine partners; i.e. two gay men will specialize on gender roles. It may be very hard for YOU, a heterosexual, to see the difference, but THEY have no problem with it. And judges can be gay too, so let gay judges figure it out. I don't really care. What's important here is that YOU stay out of their affairs.
On average, the typical homosexual man has 100 - 500 partners.
These people are probably not going to get married, anymore than a heterosexual man who has been playing the field will likely get married. This is America -- land of the individual. America is not supposed to invent laws that stereotype people based on what they consider to be part of their liberty. It doesn't matter what a typical homosexual does. For example, on average, the typical heterosexual man who gets married, gets divorced. What "they" do is no argument for what "he" or "she" may do. So let's drop with the stereotypes.
No other demographic group can compare with such instability.
I just did. Divorced adulterous people. And you find lots of them in the conservative party.
Netherlands... While married, these men have an average of eight outside partners.
Well maybe they had 10 times as many when they were single. If so, then this does "change that pattern of infidelity". More than 50 percent of all married women, at some point, cheat on their mates.
Not only does this present difficulties for the courts, it puts an undesirable burden on children.
You are arguing against being gay -- not being gay married. And you've already lost that battle. It is legal to be gay these days and for gays to adopt children. What you need to do is argue that if two gay partners with children later get married, then somehow the bad will increase more than the good. You have to argue that the children will then say, "Oh no. My parents are gay and that was tough enough. Now their getting married? I think I'm going to kill myself." NO. I think the children would prefer that their gay parents get married, for exactly the same reason that children of straight parents would prefer marriage.
And who gets the child when the gay men leave each other--which statistics say is inevitable?
Statistics say nothing about the individual. A fact about an individual implies information about the whole. The converse is not true. PROOF: 3 + 4 tells me something about the total. Now given the total is 100, this says nothing about any part. America is about INDIVIDUALS -- not GROUPS. People have the right to pursue their own happiness individually. I will bet top dollar that granting gay people the right to get married will make them far more happier than it will make you and all your friends unhappy. You will learn to accept it, just like you have learned to accept the fact that Freddy Mercury was gay.
Ah! So, you’re saying we can’t allow polygamist marriages because forms, paperwork, and computer systems don’t already accommodate them. In other words, the traditional understanding of marriage is so entrenched in society, it would be too expensive to change. Correct? Consider for a moment the kinds of changes required to abolish thousands of years of understanding about human relations, all to accommodate same-sex marriage. ENORMOUS overhauls of forms, paperwork, and computer systems will be necessary to make marriage non-gender specific. I can’t even comprehend all the changes that would be needed to integrate same-sex marriage into the culture, government, legal apparatus, and the business world. Not every form tidily asks for a “spouse.” In fact, when homosexuals attempted to marry in San Francisco, they ran into a slight hitch. The marriage certificate asked for the name of the husband and the name of the wife, along with the maiden name.
I don't buy your argument that gay marriage is legally complicated. We do not pass out two different forms for males and females. They are generic and ask for your "spouse's" name. Even my marriage certificate was generic. But so what. If the out dated application mentions the words husband, wife, man, woman, etc. the the gay couples will choose how to fill out those forms. They have been referring to themselves in those terms for decades now. They've done all the work integrating their way into society. They are used to it, and forms can later be changed. But forms accepting 3 or more spouse names are a bit more tricky. I don't buy your argument that gay marriage is equally or more complicated form-wise than polygamy. But I could careless either way. It's not about me. It's about them. And I refuse to allow myself to hinder someone else's freedom when their freedom does not in anyway limit mine. That's just down right evil in the most pretentious-righteous way. Maybe one day you will think the same.
What about surnames?
What about them? Most of the times, they don't change their name. If they do, THEY decide, not you, and not the government. Hetero-married couples keep their names from time to time -- even with children.
How does the term “maiden name” apply to homosexual men? How does the term “wife” apply to homosexual men?
Let THEM decide how it applies. If you are too confused to figure it out, then don't expect to get invited to THEIR marriage. I think you will find that THEY (along with all their friends and family) have already figured it out. They have already integrated the traditional vocabulary into their system, just like we have gotten rid of terms like stewardess, seamstress, fireman, and policeman, but have allowed terms like nurse to apply to men. WE CAN ADAPT! And no one says that you have to. If you don't like their culture, then stay away. But expect to go to jail if you discriminate against them politically or economically.
Of course, these terms can’t apply. The only answer will be to abolish their use. No more husband and wife. No more maiden names. Those words are now discriminatory. They imply that heterosexual unions are favored above homosexual unions.
Of course they can. Again, you are making the mistake of applying those terms "collectively" to wholes, rather than parts. In the context of a married couple, you either know which terms apply to which person, or you don't and make an fool of yourself. When you see two people in the hospital, and one is a doctor and one is a nurse, you either know which one is the doctor, or you don't, at which point you ask, or go do something else. The government does not owe you a convenient labeling algorithm. Take a man named "William Smith". Do you call that person William, Will, Bill, or Mr. Smith. By your reasoning, we need to get rid of all names in the world because you can't instantly satisfy your need to box it all up out of context. The rest of us just ask Bill, or listen to what other people do, or wait to be properly introduced. If Bill is a customer at your cash register, you may interact with that person for 10 minutes and never even use his name. You might just interact with a gay married couple for years without ever knowing whether they are married or not. How long did it take you to figure out that the boys next door were a gay couple by the fact that they were wearing identical matching rings on their right hands? You learn.... or you don't. The government is not supposed to make laws that make you feel good about your philosophy, or complacent about your religion. It's not supposed to play favorites with respect to ideals. It is supposed to make sure that others cannot clobber you over the head for what you believe.
It would be naïve to think marriage can simply be redefined overnight for gays, but not for any others! It’s also naïve to think that redefining marriage to allow same-sex couples is an easy, non-expensive task.
It would be naive for you to think that it hasn't already been redefined for decades in ways that just don't affect you. And since it doesn't affect you, you should just opt out.
From experience, we can conclude that homosexual relationships are inherently messy legally, even without marriage.
From experience, over the last 10,000 years, we can conclude that 95 percent of the population are farmers. Times change. New experience makes a stronger argument than old experience. As long as you are not paying for the legal mess, what does it matter to you? They are only 5 percent of the population. Of them, if 10 percent decide to get married, that's still a small percentage.
Take the case in Colorado, for example. Two lesbians adopted a child from China. They broke up after eight years. One of the women retained full custody, while the other was denied all contact, even visitation rights. Ironically, the reason she was refused visitation rights is that she became a born-again Christian, and the judge decided that no person can have visitation rights who might teach the child negative things about the other parent’s lifestyle.
You'll find lots of equally messy cases that apply to straight couples, such as when one couple is on Visa visitation rights to America, gets married, gets divorced a year later, then has to be deported with their children remaining in the USA. Marriage is supposed to be something that an individual possesses, not something that a collective hive controls and manages. But if the government is going to go there anyway, however socialistic it seems, then they might as well start treating all their tax payers one equal terms.
When it comes to homosexuals, yes, you are right. Their marital status is irrelevant.
I say the same thing about divorced couples that remarry.
My question for you... How does gay marriage diminish your marriage (assuming you are married, and I don't even know if you are a man or woman)?
Thank you for illustrating the point. Therefore:
To support same-sex marriage is to support polygamy. To support same-sex marriage is to support underage marriage. To support same-sex marriage is to support consensual incestuous marriage. To support same-sex marriage is to support bigamist-bisexual marriage. To support same-sex marriage is to support marriage for anyone who wants it, no matter the form it takes.
Anything short of this is an irrational exclusion, per your definition.
Your definition of freedom is libertinism--that is, "I refuse to allow myself to hinder someone else's freedom when their freedom does not in anyway limit mine."
Should drugs be legal? Your answer is, "I refuse to allow myself to hinder someone else's freedom when their freedom does not in anyway limit mine."
What about prostitution? It doesn’t affect your marriage. "I refuse to allow myself to hinder someone else's freedom when their freedom does not in anyway limit mine."
Nudity doesn't limit your freedom. In fact, preventing it limits freedom. "I refuse to allow myself to hinder someone else's freedom when their freedom does not in anyway limit mine."
Abortion doesn’t affect you. They say it’s a woman’s choice. "I refuse to allow myself to hinder someone else's freedom when their freedom does not in anyway limit mine."
Pornography on a school teacher’s computer? Who cares? It doesn’t limit your choices. "I refuse to allow myself to hinder someone else's freedom when their freedom does not in anyway limit mine."
With this philosophy of government, you just made everything so simple! Freedom for all, to do whatever we please! No restraints, no restrictions! Just keep out of my business, and I’ll keep out of yours!
Is that really what you believe?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.