Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-15
Jump to topic:

On "Equality" & Same-Sex Marriage

SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 12:23:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Whether marriage laws are equal or not depends solely on what the telos of marriage is taken to be (that is, what marriage is for). To simply assert that marriage laws should be "equal" either betrays an ignorance of the current marriage laws as they stand or otherwise amounts to simply begging the question.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 12:46:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 12:23:06 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
Whether marriage laws are equal or not depends solely on what the telos of marriage is taken to be (that is, what marriage is for). To simply assert that marriage laws should be "equal" either betrays an ignorance of the current marriage laws as they stand or otherwise amounts to simply begging the question.

I would agree that marriage benefits were offered to induce procreation, thus gays shouldn't be allowed to marry.

However, if that is the case, that effort has been abondoned decades ago by offering benefits for children that follow the child, not the couple. As such, in our current system, there is no valid reason to not allow any two (or more) persons the benefits of marriage, which begs the question, why have marriage at all as a government institution? Get rid of it, and let anyone get benefits using other legal documents (like wills and power of attorneys).
My work here is, finally, done.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 12:48:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The valuation of marriage that would demand purpose is not predicated on anything in the Constitution. Stop thinking your religion applies to everybody.

And by the way, what exactly does "betrays an ignorance" mean?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 2:57:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 12:31:49 PM, drafterman wrote:
Until the government stops handing out benefits to childless couples, "having kids" isn't the teleos of marriage.

Well, for reasons I've stated previously, I disagree. But, for the sake of the argument, what, then, is the telos of marriage?
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 3:04:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 2:57:01 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 6/27/2013 12:31:49 PM, drafterman wrote:
Until the government stops handing out benefits to childless couples, "having kids" isn't the teleos of marriage.

Well, for reasons I've stated previously, I disagree. But, for the sake of the argument, what, then, is the telos of marriage?

Whatever people want it to be. That's the point of having a freedom: you get to decide what it is. That's like saying there is a telos of having a driver's license.

The idea that people have to be married for a specific reason is absurd and certainly not enforced by the government to any degree of measure.

You say the telos of marriage is for procreation. Outside of SSM, I challenge you to find a single government action that was committed in furtherance of this telos.
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 3:08:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
For as long as the government regulates marriage they must define marriage in a way that best benefits society.

The government defines marriage between man and woman and dispenses benefits to them in order to promote a healthy family unit.

There is absolutely no need for the government to regulate a purely emotional relationship because it does not benefit the society. If the government is going to regulate these types of relationships then they should just privatize marriage all together.
Nolite Timere
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 3:08:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 12:31:49 PM, drafterman wrote:
Until the government stops handing out benefits to childless couples, "having kids" isn't the teleos of marriage.

Infertile and childless couples promote the view that the government defines marriage between man and woman not by means to an end, but for the relationship the couple pursues which naturally leads to children.
Nolite Timere
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 3:39:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 3:08:58 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 6/27/2013 12:31:49 PM, drafterman wrote:
Until the government stops handing out benefits to childless couples, "having kids" isn't the teleos of marriage.

Infertile and childless couples promote the view that the government defines marriage between man and woman not by means to an end, but for the relationship the couple pursues which naturally leads to children.

I'm not taking about granting marriage certificates. I'm talking about the benefits of being married. These are granted regardless of the existence of children. How does allowing me and my wife to file jointly regardless of whether or not we have children follow this stance?
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 3:41:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 3:08:01 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
For as long as the government regulates marriage they must define marriage in a way that best benefits society.

The government defines marriage between man and woman

Not anymore.

and dispenses benefits to them in order to promote a healthy family unit.

A married couple is a family unit whether or not they have children.


There is absolutely no need for the government to regulate a purely emotional relationship because it does not benefit the society. If the government is going to regulate these types of relationships then they should just privatize marriage all together.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 3:46:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 3:08:58 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 6/27/2013 12:31:49 PM, drafterman wrote:
Until the government stops handing out benefits to childless couples, "having kids" isn't the teleos of marriage.

Infertile and childless couples promote the view that the government defines marriage between man and woman not by means to an end, but for the relationship the couple pursues which naturally leads to children.

If the government cared about the procreation factor, then why are child tax credits offered to anyone with a child, not only married couples? This, and many similar benefits, reduces the necessity of procreative marriages.
My work here is, finally, done.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 3:53:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Y'know, the whole teleology argument in regard to anti-SSM reeks of the attitude that citizens are obligated to their state.

It basically amounts to us saying that the state benevolently allows couples to marry and receive benefits, as long as the couple brings forth a child to please the state, or that they could in theory produce children. In other words, it turns marriage as a coercive tool by the state to try and train its citizenry to act in a certain way for the state's benefit.

The teleology argument is paternalistic, authoritarian, offensive, and I'd even be inclined to call it downright immoral in its implications.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 10:43:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 3:53:03 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
Y'know, the whole teleology argument in regard to anti-SSM reeks of the attitude that citizens are obligated to their state.

It basically amounts to us saying that the state benevolently allows couples to marry and receive benefits, as long as the couple brings forth a child to please the state, or that they could in theory produce children. In other words, it turns marriage as a coercive tool by the state to try and train its citizenry to act in a certain way for the state's benefit.

The teleology argument is paternalistic, authoritarian, offensive, and I'd even be inclined to call it downright immoral in its implications.

When you realize that the state really means the taxpayers, then it makes perfect sense. If money is taken away from taxpayers, then any use of that money should provide some benefit for the citizens. The service provided by heterosexuals, thus the reason they can receive benefits, cannot possibly be provided by homosexuals.

Homosexuals benefit, just as the rest of society, from the service provided by heterosexuals. Yet, they cannot contribute to helping provide the same service for which heterosexuals receive benefits. Therefore, for homosexuals to receive these same benefits is immoral and asinine. Money is forcefully taken from the pockets of taxpayers, and given to homosexuals for...nothing.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2013 11:27:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'm pro-ssm all the way, but methinks a lot of you here don't actually "get" the natural law argument.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
YYW
Posts: 36,392
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2013 1:33:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/28/2013 11:27:07 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
I'm pro-ssm all the way, but methinks a lot of you here don't actually "get" the natural law argument.
Tsar of DDO