Total Posts:137|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Clarification on the Marriage Discourse

SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2013 4:00:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Without much reflection on the matter and in an effort to play into our sensibilities that "discriminating" is wrong and mean (by playing into the idea that people are just being cruel by discriminating and that they do so because they think gay people are just "icky"), supporters of same-sex marriage often allege that marriage laws as they stand are "discriminatory" or "unequal".

However, in doing so, they subtly (and often unknowingly) beg the question by assuming that marriage really is just people liking each other a lot and committing to one another. What marriage is is the only really relevant question that needs to be answered when discussing gay marriage, and defenders of gay marriage, when making this appeal, already assume two homosexuals marrying one another is valid, the real issue in contention, before the debate even gets started.

Now, do read the following carefully so as to not misrepresent or misunderstand me:

If marriage really is, as the supporter of same-sex marriage alleges, just people liking each other a lot and committing to one another, then they would be correct in saying that "marriage," as such, would be discriminatory and unequal if persons of the same sex were not allowed to "marry" one another, for there would be no basis to not allow, say, Fred and Bob, or Mary and Courtney, or Fred, Mary, Courtney and Bob to "marry" one another if marriage is just people liking each other a lot and committing to one another.

Similarly, if, as I am convinced of, marriage really exists to attach mothers and fathers to their children and to one another, upon whose stability the children depend, then you can see why it makes perfect sense to restrict two individuals of the same sex to "marry" as they cannot, in principle, fulfill the public purpose of marriage so construed. It would likewise be erroneous to assert that marriage, so understood, would be "unequal" or otherwise "discriminatory" insofar as every single individual would have the exact same rights and restrictions on whom they can marry, regardless of their sexual orientation, namely, that any individual can marry someone of the opposite sex. So understood, gay people are not being discriminated against (at least in this area), nor are they being denied the right to marry. They can marry. They're absolutely free to marry. They, just like any other human being, have to find someone of the opposite sex to marry. It would be discriminatory to deny a gay man the right to wed a woman (that is, marry) simply because he was gay, sure, but a person is not discriminated against if the state says no one has access to something that isn't real or something that no one can have access to.

So, as has hopefully been demonstrated, the fundamental, most important question that concerns the same-sex marriage debate (and marriage generally) is what marriage is for or what marriage is. And after answering this question, then the next matter that needs to be resolved is what is the public function that marriage, as so understood, serves to compel the state to confer it?

Hopefully this will help to guide the discourse on marriage and same-sex marriage into more fruitful grounds.
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2013 4:50:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/6/2013 4:00:07 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
Without much reflection on the matter and in an effort to play into our sensibilities that "discriminating" is wrong and mean (by playing into the idea that people are just being cruel by discriminating and that they do so because they think gay people are just "icky"), supporters of same-sex marriage often allege that marriage laws as they stand are "discriminatory" or "unequal".

Discrimination is not wrong in every case. It is in this case, though, since "anti-homosexualists" (as someone here called them) have no good arguments to support their bigotry.

However, in doing so, they subtly (and often unknowingly) beg the question by assuming that marriage really is just people liking each other a lot and committing to one another.

Personally, I think that's how people should view marriage, but that is definitely not what marriage is. Two people can marry each other regardless of whether or not they like each other at all.

What marriage is is the only really relevant question that needs to be answered when discussing gay marriage, and defenders of gay marriage, when making this appeal, already assume two homosexuals marrying one another is valid, the real issue in contention, before the debate even gets started.

Now, do read the following carefully so as to not misrepresent or misunderstand me:

If marriage really is, as the supporter of same-sex marriage alleges, just people liking each other a lot and committing to one another, then they would be correct in saying that "marriage," as such, would be discriminatory and unequal if persons of the same sex were not allowed to "marry" one another, for there would be no basis to not allow, say, Fred and Bob, or Mary and Courtney, or Fred, Mary, Courtney and Bob to "marry" one another if marriage is just people liking each other a lot and committing to one another.

With ya' so far, pal.

Similarly, if, as I am convinced of, marriage really exists to attach mothers and fathers to their children and to one another, upon whose stability the children depend, then you can see why it makes perfect sense to restrict two individuals of the same sex to "marry" as they cannot, in principle, fulfill the public purpose of marriage so construed.

Two people of the same gender can't raise a child? This, I did not know. Your insight is fascinating, truly.

It would likewise be erroneous to assert that marriage, so understood, would be "unequal" or otherwise "discriminatory" insofar as every single individual would have the exact same rights and restrictions on whom they can marry, regardless of their sexual orientation, namely, that any individual can marry someone of the opposite sex.

That is hilarious. It's like that spoof they did on George Bush, saying, "I have no problem with gay marriage, as long as it's a gay man marrying a gay woman." Except they were being facetious and you are, sadly, being serious.
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2013 5:11:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/6/2013 4:50:48 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 7/6/2013 4:00:07 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
Without much reflection on the matter and in an effort to play into our sensibilities that "discriminating" is wrong and mean (by playing into the idea that people are just being cruel by discriminating and that they do so because they think gay people are just "icky"), supporters of same-sex marriage often allege that marriage laws as they stand are "discriminatory" or "unequal".

Discrimination is not wrong in every case. It is in this case, though, since "anti-homosexualists" (as someone here called them) have no good arguments to support their bigotry.

That would be, as I explained, to beg the question and on two accounts and thus to be guilty of the very same thing you are accusing me of, namely, being a closed-minded bigot " resting his views on prejudice and emotion rather than actual knowledge of a subject " that you claim to deplore.


However, in doing so, they subtly (and often unknowingly) beg the question by assuming that marriage really is just people liking each other a lot and committing to one another.

Personally, I think that's how people should view marriage, but that is definitely not what marriage is. Two people can marry each other regardless of whether or not they like each other at all.

So then what is marriage?


What marriage is is the only really relevant question that needs to be answered when discussing gay marriage, and defenders of gay marriage, when making this appeal, already assume two homosexuals marrying one another is valid, the real issue in contention, before the debate even gets started.

Now, do read the following carefully so as to not misrepresent or misunderstand me:

If marriage really is, as the supporter of same-sex marriage alleges, just people liking each other a lot and committing to one another, then they would be correct in saying that "marriage," as such, would be discriminatory and unequal if persons of the same sex were not allowed to "marry" one another, for there would be no basis to not allow, say, Fred and Bob, or Mary and Courtney, or Fred, Mary, Courtney and Bob to "marry" one another if marriage is just people liking each other a lot and committing to one another.

With ya' so far, pal.

Similarly, if, as I am convinced of, marriage really exists to attach mothers and fathers to their children and to one another, upon whose stability the children depend, then you can see why it makes perfect sense to restrict two individuals of the same sex to "marry" as they cannot, in principle, fulfill the public purpose of marriage so construed.

Two people of the same gender can't raise a child? This, I did not know. Your insight is fascinating, truly.

This is just point-missing. Cannot a single man raise a child as well? Or 15 people? Does that mean that a single man can "marry" himself, or that 15 people should be able to "marry"?

You're barking up the wrong tree, so to speak. Your contentions shouldn't lie with whether the understanding of marriage as I defend it could include couples of the same-sex. It quite clearly cannot. Where you ought to place your efforts is to demonstrate why marriage as you envision it is (i) coherent and (ii) of compelling interest to the public good.


It would likewise be erroneous to assert that marriage, so understood, would be "unequal" or otherwise "discriminatory" insofar as every single individual would have the exact same rights and restrictions on whom they can marry, regardless of their sexual orientation, namely, that any individual can marry someone of the opposite sex.

That is hilarious. It's like that spoof they did on George Bush, saying, "I have no problem with gay marriage, as long as it's a gay man marrying a gay woman." Except they were being facetious and you are, sadly, being serious.

Well, you're not even contesting my point. You're just attempting to ridicule it. Way to go. You want a cookie or something?
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2013 10:05:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"marriage really exists to attach mothers and fathers to their children and to one another"

That says it all, right there, and it's a sad statement about what we're teaching kids, when young adults can't grasp the importance of that concept, or outright reject it.

Just thinking out loud here but maybe it's just something that is learned through maturity, or actual experience. It does seem ironic that most people who are telling us that family, marriage, and parenthood should mean something different, are people whose only experience with those things came as a child.
YYW
Posts: 36,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2013 10:50:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
This has been tried so many times by opponents to gay marriage. It has failed in the past, fails now and will continue to fail in the future because the questions the OP asks are not objectively answerable, nor are answers static, nor agreeable, nor philosophically groundable.
Tsar of DDO
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2013 12:00:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/6/2013 10:50:16 PM, YYW wrote:
This has been tried so many times by opponents to gay marriage.

What has been tried so many times by opponents of same-sex marriage? Making careful distinctions in an attempt to winnow down on where the fundamental disagreement is and to encourage clearer, non-question-begging conversation on the matter? Oh, the humanity!

It has failed in the past, fails now and will continue to fail in the future because the questions the OP asks are not objectively answerable, nor are answers static, nor agreeable, nor philosophically groundable.

How so?
bulproof
Posts: 25,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2013 12:11:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Well SD I hope that you are very happy with your definition of marriage. I's completely meaningless to me but each to his own. Just make sure you don't try to foist that meaningless drivel onto me. There's a good chap.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2013 12:18:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/6/2013 4:00:07 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
Similarly, if, as I am convinced of, marriage really exists to attach mothers and fathers to their children and to one another, upon whose stability the children depend, then you can see why it makes perfect sense to restrict two individuals of the same sex to "marry" as they cannot, in principle, fulfill the public purpose of marriage so construed.

Assuming this is true, would a straight couple marrying and then never having kids be as bad as gay marriage? Furthermore, what would be the functional difference between a straight couple that refuses to have children, and a gay couple that cannot have children? Both result in two people living together until they die, with no descendants. The state recognizes one, but not the other, despite the fact that the end result of recognizing either is the same.

Unless you can show an intrinsic value to childless opposite-sex couples that makes them worthy of the full benefits of marriage (as far as the public is concerned), you are creating a double standard.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
YYW
Posts: 36,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2013 12:32:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/7/2013 12:11:59 AM, bulproof wrote:
Well SD I hope that you are very happy with your definition of marriage. I's completely meaningless to me but each to his own. Just make sure you don't try to foist that meaningless drivel onto me. There's a good chap.
Tsar of DDO
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2013 12:47:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/6/2013 5:11:22 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 7/6/2013 4:50:48 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 7/6/2013 4:00:07 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
Without much reflection on the matter and in an effort to play into our sensibilities that "discriminating" is wrong and mean (by playing into the idea that people are just being cruel by discriminating and that they do so because they think gay people are just "icky"), supporters of same-sex marriage often allege that marriage laws as they stand are "discriminatory" or "unequal".

Discrimination is not wrong in every case. It is in this case, though, since "anti-homosexualists" (as someone here called them) have no good arguments to support their bigotry.

That would be, as I explained, to beg the question and on two accounts and thus to be guilty of the very same thing you are accusing me of, namely, being a closed-minded bigot " resting his views on prejudice and emotion rather than actual knowledge of a subject " that you claim to deplore.

My saying you have no good arguments to support your bigotry is not a syllogism attempting to establish a conclusion; it is therefore not question-begging; it's a mere fact.

However, in doing so, they subtly (and often unknowingly) beg the question by assuming that marriage really is just people liking each other a lot and committing to one another.

Personally, I think that's how people should view marriage, but that is definitely not what marriage is. Two people can marry each other regardless of whether or not they like each other at all.

So then what is marriage?

This question is either asking (a) what is the definition of marriage, or (b) what do I think the definition of marriage should be.

(a) Marriage is as legislature defines it.
(b) I've already expressed my views on how I think people should view marriage: as people formally committing themselves to one another. Ideally, though, I'd like for marriage as a whole to be abolished and left as a completely privately-recognized ceremony.

What marriage is is the only really relevant question that needs to be answered when discussing gay marriage, and defenders of gay marriage, when making this appeal, already assume two homosexuals marrying one another is valid, the real issue in contention, before the debate even gets started.

Now, do read the following carefully so as to not misrepresent or misunderstand me:

If marriage really is, as the supporter of same-sex marriage alleges, just people liking each other a lot and committing to one another, then they would be correct in saying that "marriage," as such, would be discriminatory and unequal if persons of the same sex were not allowed to "marry" one another, for there would be no basis to not allow, say, Fred and Bob, or Mary and Courtney, or Fred, Mary, Courtney and Bob to "marry" one another if marriage is just people liking each other a lot and committing to one another.

With ya' so far, pal.

Similarly, if, as I am convinced of, marriage really exists to attach mothers and fathers to their children and to one another, upon whose stability the children depend, then you can see why it makes perfect sense to restrict two individuals of the same sex to "marry" as they cannot, in principle, fulfill the public purpose of marriage so construed.

Two people of the same gender can't raise a child? This, I did not know. Your insight is fascinating, truly.

This is just point-missing. Cannot a single man raise a child as well? Or 15 people? Does that mean that a single man can "marry" himself, or that 15 people should be able to "marry"?

Point-missing? On the contrary, the fact that a single parent, or two parents of the same gender, can raise a child just as successfully as two parents of opposite genders does, in fact, expose your definition of marriage to be incomplete at best. In principle, two members of the same sex can fulfill the purpose of your definition of marriage, which is to bond them to each other and to their children.

You're barking up the wrong tree, so to speak. Your contentions shouldn't lie with whether the understanding of marriage as I defend it could include couples of the same-sex. It quite clearly cannot.

Generally, those who say "It is quite clear X is correct" are just afraid of someone else saying "X might be wrong". It's, in fact, not quite clear to me that same-sex couples cannot also fulfill the purpose of your definition of marriage, warped as it may be. In the future, I'd appreciate it if you actually backed up the things you say with more than just "it should be obvious".

Where you ought to place your efforts is to demonstrate why marriage as you envision it is (i) coherent and (ii) of compelling interest to the public good.

How does the public benefit from same-sex couples being refused the right to marry, especially when the majority of the public agrees they should be granted that right?

It would likewise be erroneous to assert that marriage, so understood, would be "unequal" or otherwise "discriminatory" insofar as every single individual would have the exact same rights and restrictions on whom they can marry, regardless of their sexual orientation, namely, that any individual can marry someone of the opposite sex.

That is hilarious. It's like that spoof they did on George Bush, saying, "I have no problem with gay marriage, as long as it's a gay man marrying a gay woman." Except they were being facetious and you are, sadly, being serious.

Well, you're not even contesting my point. You're just attempting to ridicule it. Way to go. You want a cookie or something?

That's because it is a point very worthy of ridicule. And, yes, I would love a cookie.
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2013 2:26:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
You make a very good point.

Gay marriage opponents , do not deny the right to Gays to marry, but deny the right to anybody to call a same sex union a marriage.And a same sex union isn't equal and will never be equal to a heterosexual couple union. and marriage was set to tie the members of the heterosexual union with sacred ties to save the rights of the couple and the children, even if the union ends, the kids still are called upon their true father and mother which are their family.A same sex union isn't a family and will never be, it is the destruction of family.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2013 2:28:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/6/2013 4:00:07 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
Without much reflection on the matter and in an effort to play into our sensibilities that "discriminating" is wrong and mean (by playing into the idea that people are just being cruel by discriminating and that they do so because they think gay people are just "icky"), supporters of same-sex marriage often allege that marriage laws as they stand are "discriminatory" or "unequal".

However, in doing so, they subtly (and often unknowingly) beg the question by assuming that marriage really is just people liking each other a lot and committing to one another. What marriage is is the only really relevant question that needs to be answered when discussing gay marriage, and defenders of gay marriage, when making this appeal, already assume two homosexuals marrying one another is valid, the real issue in contention, before the debate even gets started.

Now, do read the following carefully so as to not misrepresent or misunderstand me:

If marriage really is, as the supporter of same-sex marriage alleges, just people liking each other a lot and committing to one another, then they would be correct in saying that "marriage," as such, would be discriminatory and unequal if persons of the same sex were not allowed to "marry" one another, for there would be no basis to not allow, say, Fred and Bob, or Mary and Courtney, or Fred, Mary, Courtney and Bob to "marry" one another if marriage is just people liking each other a lot and committing to one another.

Similarly, if, as I am convinced of, marriage really exists to attach mothers and fathers to their children and to one another, upon whose stability the children depend, then you can see why it makes perfect sense to restrict two individuals of the same sex to "marry" as they cannot, in principle, fulfill the public purpose of marriage so construed. It would likewise be erroneous to assert that marriage, so understood, would be "unequal" or otherwise "discriminatory" insofar as every single individual would have the exact same rights and restrictions on whom they can marry, regardless of their sexual orientation, namely, that any individual can marry someone of the opposite sex. So understood, gay people are not being discriminated against (at least in this area), nor are they being denied the right to marry. They can marry. They're absolutely free to marry. They, just like any other human being, have to find someone of the opposite sex to marry. It would be discriminatory to deny a gay man the right to wed a woman (that is, marry) simply because he was gay, sure, but a person is not discriminated against if the state says no one has access to something that isn't real or something that no one can have access to.

So, as has hopefully been demonstrated, the fundamental, most important question that concerns the same-sex marriage debate (and marriage generally) is what marriage is for or what marriage is. And after answering this question, then the next matter that needs to be resolved is what is the public function that marriage, as so understood, serves to compel the state to confer it?

Hopefully this will help to guide the discourse on marriage and same-sex marriage into more fruitful grounds.

Nothing you said has anything to do with the legal construct of marriage.
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2013 2:59:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/7/2013 2:26:14 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
You make a very good point.

Gay marriage opponents , do not deny the right to Gays to marry, but deny the right to anybody to call a same sex union a marriage.And a same sex union isn't equal and will never be equal to a heterosexual couple union. and marriage was set to tie the members of the heterosexual union with sacred ties to save the rights of the couple and the children, even if the union ends, the kids still are called upon their true father and mother which are their family.A same sex union isn't a family and will never be, it is the destruction of family.

Actually, that's not a good point at all; it's just a way to mask one's discrimination.

Imagine if the legal definition of marriage was "a union between two spouses, both of which must be of the same ethnical race". You could say this definition does not discriminate against any particular individual; after all, every individual is granted the exact same right: to marry someone else that happens to be of the same ethnical race as him-/herself. But it does clearly discriminate against particular couples (any couple of differing ethnicities), and, my association, it does actually discriminate against the individuals who are part of those couples.
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2013 3:51:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/7/2013 12:18:22 AM, drhead wrote:
At 7/6/2013 4:00:07 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
Similarly, if, as I am convinced of, marriage really exists to attach mothers and fathers to their children and to one another, upon whose stability the children depend, then you can see why it makes perfect sense to restrict two individuals of the same sex to "marry" as they cannot, in principle, fulfill the public purpose of marriage so construed.

Assuming this is true, would a straight couple marrying and then never having kids be as bad as gay marriage?

No, and for at least four reasons:

I.) Between a man and a woman, procreation is always possible in principle. That an individual in a heterosexual happens to be infertile is a mere incidence. That some men and women can't procreate is irrelevant. Just as a damaged eye is still for seeing -- that is still its natural end, whether or not it can realize it, and thus still defines the boundaries of its good use.

2.) The private reasons why individuals marry is irrelevant; obviously, a couple may choose to marry for hundreds of reasons (e.g., because I love my girlfriend; because I want social and economic stability; because I want to raise children in a family; because I want to climb a social ladder; because I want to piss my ex-girlfriend off; etc.). There are countless private goods one could pursue by getting married. Those private reasons, however, are irrelevant because those private reasons do not add up to a single public reason to have marriage in the first place; you do not need the institution of marriage to piss of your ex-girlfriend, or to declare your love to your significant other, or for financial stability, etc., and those reasons are not of any interest to the state to confer benefits for whatsoever. It's not the public's business, for example, that you love Courtney, or that you want financial stability.

3.) Assuming marriage really exists to unite men and women to attach them to their children and to one another in an effort to provide a stable home for their children to be raised in, "marriages" between people of the same sex are non-sequitors (i.e. there is no such thing as a "marriage" between two people of the same sex).

4.) The accepting of same-sex marriage promotes the idea that the happiness of the couple getting married, rather than the good of the children or of the public at large, is what is more important. Doing so, however, is pernicious to the public good as it encourages sexual relations outside of marriage and children being born out of wedlock (and thus lacking a stable home or interaction with each of their parents) and is also the cause of many of the social and psychological pathologies that have been rampant for the last 40 years or so.

Furthermore, what would be the functional difference between a straight couple that refuses to have children, and a gay couple that cannot have children?

Again, the private reasons and goods individuals stand to gain from marrying is irrelevant and do not add up to a single public purpose of marriage. That a married man and woman choose to not have children just is one example of a private reason. Furthermore, between a man and a woman, procreation is always possible, in principle, whereas, between two members of the same sex, procreation is impossible in principle.

Both result in two people living together until they die, with no descendants. The state recognizes one, but not the other, despite the fact that the end result of recognizing either is the same.

No, it is not the same.


Unless you can show an intrinsic value to childless opposite-sex couples that makes them worthy of the full benefits of marriage (as far as the public is concerned), you are creating a double standard.

Well, I've elaborated on this above.
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2013 3:53:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/7/2013 12:32:03 AM, YYW wrote:
At 7/7/2013 12:11:59 AM, bulproof wrote:
Well SD I hope that you are very happy with your definition of marriage. I's completely meaningless to me but each to his own. Just make sure you don't try to foist that meaningless drivel onto me. There's a good chap.

Now, YYW, I fully expect this sort of intellectual offal to spew forth from bulproof, who has demonstrated himself to be an ardent and zealous troll (with double-degrees in Troll, B.A. and Retard Studies B.S. from the university of Trollingham), but I would not expect such inane waste of bandwidth from you.
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2013 4:00:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/7/2013 2:59:59 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 7/7/2013 2:26:14 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
You make a very good point.

Gay marriage opponents , do not deny the right to Gays to marry, but deny the right to anybody to call a same sex union a marriage.And a same sex union isn't equal and will never be equal to a heterosexual couple union. and marriage was set to tie the members of the heterosexual union with sacred ties to save the rights of the couple and the children, even if the union ends, the kids still are called upon their true father and mother which are their family.A same sex union isn't a family and will never be, it is the destruction of family.

Actually, that's not a good point at all; it's just a way to mask one's discrimination.

Imagine if the legal definition of marriage was "a union between two spouses, both of which must be of the same ethnical race". You could say this definition does not discriminate against any particular individual; after all, every individual is granted the exact same right: to marry someone else that happens to be of the same ethnical race as him-/herself. But it does clearly discriminate against particular couples (any couple of differing ethnicities), and, by association, it does actually discriminate against the individuals who are part of those couples.

fixed
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2013 4:21:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/7/2013 2:59:59 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 7/7/2013 2:26:14 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
You make a very good point.

Gay marriage opponents , do not deny the right to Gays to marry, but deny the right to anybody to call a same sex union a marriage.And a same sex union isn't equal and will never be equal to a heterosexual couple union. and marriage was set to tie the members of the heterosexual union with sacred ties to save the rights of the couple and the children, even if the union ends, the kids still are called upon their true father and mother which are their family.A same sex union isn't a family and will never be, it is the destruction of family.

Actually, that's not a good point at all; it's just a way to mask one's discrimination.

Imagine if the legal definition of marriage was "a union between two spouses, both of which must be of the same ethnical race". You could say this definition does not discriminate against any particular individual; after all, every individual is granted the exact same right: to marry someone else that happens to be of the same ethnical race as him-/herself. But it does clearly discriminate against particular couples (any couple of differing ethnicities), and, my association, it does actually discriminate against the individuals who are part of those couples.

The two situations are incomparable.

You are comparing a biologically invalid family with a valid one!
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2013 4:48:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/7/2013 4:21:29 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 7/7/2013 2:59:59 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 7/7/2013 2:26:14 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
You make a very good point.

Gay marriage opponents , do not deny the right to Gays to marry, but deny the right to anybody to call a same sex union a marriage.And a same sex union isn't equal and will never be equal to a heterosexual couple union. and marriage was set to tie the members of the heterosexual union with sacred ties to save the rights of the couple and the children, even if the union ends, the kids still are called upon their true father and mother which are their family.A same sex union isn't a family and will never be, it is the destruction of family.

Actually, that's not a good point at all; it's just a way to mask one's discrimination.

Imagine if the legal definition of marriage was "a union between two spouses, both of which must be of the same ethnical race". You could say this definition does not discriminate against any particular individual; after all, every individual is granted the exact same right: to marry someone else that happens to be of the same ethnical race as him-/herself. But it does clearly discriminate against particular couples (any couple of differing ethnicities), and, my association, it does actually discriminate against the individuals who are part of those couples.

The two situations are incomparable.

And yet I compared them.

You are comparing a biologically invalid family with a valid one!

I was showing that, theoretically, discrimination can be present even when each individual is afforded the exact same rights. Your comparing "biologically invalid families" and "biologically valid" ones (whatever that means) is irrelevant to that.
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2013 5:18:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/7/2013 12:47:42 AM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 7/6/2013 5:11:22 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 7/6/2013 4:50:48 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 7/6/2013 4:00:07 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
Without much reflection on the matter and in an effort to play into our sensibilities that "discriminating" is wrong and mean (by playing into the idea that people are just being cruel by discriminating and that they do so because they think gay people are just "icky"), supporters of same-sex marriage often allege that marriage laws as they stand are "discriminatory" or "unequal".

Discrimination is not wrong in every case. It is in this case, though, since "anti-homosexualists" (as someone here called them) have no good arguments to support their bigotry.

That would be, as I explained, to beg the question and on two accounts and thus to be guilty of the very same thing you are accusing me of, namely, being a closed-minded bigot " resting his views on prejudice and emotion rather than actual knowledge of a subject " that you claim to deplore.

My saying you have no good arguments to support your bigotry is not a syllogism attempting to establish a conclusion; it is therefore not question-begging; it's a mere fact.

Why should I even bother to attempt to converse with you if you have already come to such conclusions about me and my position? Again, Dakota, you are revealing yourself to be the kind of bigot you no doubt claim to despise.


However, in doing so, they subtly (and often unknowingly) beg the question by assuming that marriage really is just people liking each other a lot and committing to one another.

Personally, I think that's how people should view marriage, but that is definitely not what marriage is. Two people can marry each other regardless of whether or not they like each other at all.

So then what is marriage?

This question is either asking (a) what is the definition of marriage, or (b) what do I think the definition of marriage should be.

(a) Marriage is as legislature defines it.
(b) I've already expressed my views on how I think people should view marriage: as people formally committing themselves to one another.

Ok.

I.) That commits you to an absurd supposition, namely, that, if you accept this view of marriage, you have no basis (in principle, yet perhaps not in practice) to deny "marriage" to, say, 10 individuals who seek to commit to one another, or a mother and her son who wish to "commit" to one another, or a brother and his brother and half-sister who wish to "commit" to each other, or indeed 189,999 individuals who wish to "commit" to one another.

II.) People "committing" to one another is not of compelling interest to the state to a.) recognize; nor b.) confer benefits to as such does not serve any public good or purpose whatsoever. Why should the public care, for example, that you have fuzzy feelings for or wish to "be committed to" Fred or Courtney? Why should the public care that you had a quarrel with your grandma or that you got angry with the person you are "committed" to? That's not of public interest whatsoever. Indeed, you seem to concede as much with the statement you make below to the effect that you'd like "marriage as a whole to be abolished and left as a completely privately-recognized ceremony."

Ideally, though, I'd like for marriage as a whole to be abolished and left as a completely privately-recognized ceremony.

I agree; if marriage really just is people "committing to one another" or having fuzzy feelings for one another, then it would serve no public interest whatsoever.

Now if marriage exists to join men and women together to attach them to their children and to each other, the stability upon which the children depend for their well-being, then the state has an enormous interest in this as marriage is then not only tasked with making society possible, but also in stabilizing it! As such, there is not a more important societal institution.


What marriage is is the only really relevant question that needs to be answered when discussing gay marriage, and defenders of gay marriage, when making this appeal, already assume two homosexuals marrying one another is valid, the real issue in contention, before the debate even gets started.

Now, do read the following carefully so as to not misrepresent or misunderstand me:

If marriage really is, as the supporter of same-sex marriage alleges, just people liking each other a lot and committing to one another, then they would be correct in saying that "marriage," as such, would be discriminatory and unequal if persons of the same sex were not allowed to "marry" one another, for there would be no basis to not allow, say, Fred and Bob, or Mary and Courtney, or Fred, Mary, Courtney and Bob to "marry" one another if marriage is just people liking each other a lot and committing to one another.

With ya' so far, pal.

Similarly, if, as I am convinced of, marriage really exists to attach mothers and fathers to their children and to one another, upon whose stability the children depend, then you can see why it makes perfect sense to restrict two individuals of the same sex to "marry" as they cannot, in principle, fulfill the public purpose of marriage so construed.

Two people of the same gender can't raise a child? This, I did not know. Your insight is fascinating, truly.

This is just point-missing. Cannot a single man raise a child as well? Or 15 people? Does that mean that a single man can "marry" himself, or that 15 people should be able to "marry"?

Point-missing? On the contrary, the fact that a single parent, or two parents of the same gender, can raise a child just as successfully as two parents of opposite genders does, in fact, expose your definition of marriage to be incomplete at best.

This is muddleheaded. To begin with, I never conceded that a single parent or that two parents of the same gender can "raise a child just as successfully as two parents of the opposite gender." Indeed, I take such claims to be patently false. When I speak of it being "possible" for a single parent or 15 people to "raise a child," I am using the word "possible" to mean "not physically impossible" or "not metaphysically impossible." Moreover, you seem to have brought up such examples (i.e. two same-sex people raising a child) in an attempt to demonstrate that a same-sex couple can so marry. However, the idea of allowing people to "marry" just because it is physically possible for them to raise a child is absurd, as I demonstrated by pointing out that it is also physically possible, after all, for a single individual to "raise a child" as well and so, by your reasoning, he should be able to "marry" himself. Moreover, just because just because it is physically possible for, say, a single individual to "raise" a child, that doesn't mean that we should promote the raising of children by single individuals. Even more, a same-sex couple cannot, by themselves, produce a child. A third party must be added to the equation to produce forth a child. Yet the mother and the father are (usually, in same-sex parentage) usually removed from their child and the same-sex couple then just pretend to be the "mother" and "father" of the child, essentially treating children as a commodity to be purchased or obtained, not as individuals who deserve to be united and raised by their mother and father.

In principle, two members of the same sex can fulfill the purpose of your definition of marriage, which is to bond them to each other and to their children.

Of course not. After all, it is not their children! Moreover, the purpose of marriage is to attach mothers and fathers (that is, men and women) to their
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2013 5:27:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/7/2013 12:47:42 AM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 7/6/2013 5:11:22 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
You're barking up the wrong tree, so to speak. Your contentions shouldn't lie with whether the understanding of marriage as I defend it could include couples of the same-sex. It quite clearly cannot.

Generally, those who say "It is quite clear X is correct" are just afraid of someone else saying "X might be wrong". It's, in fact, not quite clear to me that same-sex couples cannot also fulfill the purpose of your definition of marriage, warped as it may be. In the future, I'd appreciate it if you actually backed up the things you say with more than just "it should be obvious".

It's obvious in the sense that it is in the definition: to attach children to their mothers and fathers. In case you haven't imbibed liberal nonsense to the point of intellectual debauchery, that means to a man and a woman, from whose sexual intercourse is aimed at the creating of life.


Where you ought to place your efforts is to demonstrate why marriage as you envision it is (i) coherent and (ii) of compelling interest to the public good.

How does the public benefit from same-sex couples being refused the right to marry?

Well, greatly so; by maintaining marriage's public purpose to join a man and woman to their children and to one another, society ensures (a) its continuation; and (b) its stability. Throwing that down the drain is tantamount to declaring that neither of these are of interest to the public good and is, for obvious reasons, to bring great pernicious harm to society at large.

especially when the majority of the public agrees they should be granted that right?

Who gives a hoot if the public agrees that we should legislate absurdities, and pernicious to the public good, at that? It is no more up to "the courts" or "the people" to "define" marriage that it is up to them to "define" whether the Pythagorean Theorem is true of right triangles; what is at issue is a matter of objective fact that it is the business of reason to discover rather than democratic procedure to stipulate.


It would likewise be erroneous to assert that marriage, so understood, would be "unequal" or otherwise "discriminatory" insofar as every single individual would have the exact same rights and restrictions on whom they can marry, regardless of their sexual orientation, namely, that any individual can marry someone of the opposite sex.

That is hilarious. It's like that spoof they did on George Bush, saying, "I have no problem with gay marriage, as long as it's a gay man marrying a gay woman." Except they were being facetious and you are, sadly, being serious.

Well, you're not even contesting my point. You're just attempting to ridicule it. Way to go. You want a cookie or something?

That's because it is a point very worthy of ridicule. And, yes, I would love a cookie.

Ah, but you didn't even contest it. The joke, I'm afraid, is on you.
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2013 6:06:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/7/2013 3:51:24 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 7/7/2013 12:18:22 AM, drhead wrote:
At 7/6/2013 4:00:07 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
Similarly, if, as I am convinced of, marriage really exists to attach mothers and fathers to their children and to one another, upon whose stability the children depend, then you can see why it makes perfect sense to restrict two individuals of the same sex to "marry" as they cannot, in principle, fulfill the public purpose of marriage so construed.

Assuming this is true, would a straight couple marrying and then never having kids be as bad as gay marriage?

No, and for at least four reasons:

I.) Between a man and a woman, procreation is always possible in principle. That an individual in a heterosexual happens to be infertile is a mere incidence. That some men and women can't procreate is irrelevant. Just as a damaged eye is still for seeing -- that is still its natural end, whether or not it can realize it, and thus still defines the boundaries of its good use.

What's so valuable about a procreative-type that can't procreate though? As for homosexuality being "unnatural", even assuming this, again so what? I'm pretty sure my foot's "natural end" isn't to change the channel on my TV. Does this make such use immoral?

2.) The private reasons why individuals marry is irrelevant; obviously, a couple may choose to marry for hundreds of reasons (e.g., because I love my girlfriend; because I want social and economic stability; because I want to raise children in a family; because I want to climb a social ladder; because I want to piss my ex-girlfriend off; etc.). There are countless private goods one could pursue by getting married. Those private reasons, however, are irrelevant because those private reasons do not add up to a single public reason to have marriage in the first place; you do not need the institution of marriage to piss of your ex-girlfriend, or to declare your love to your significant other, or for financial stability, etc., and those reasons are not of any interest to the state to confer benefits for whatsoever. It's not the public's business, for example, that you love Courtney, or that you want financial stability.

This is an argument for doing away with all marriage at Govt level, not SSM particularly.

3.) Assuming marriage really exists to unite men and women to attach them to their children and to one another in an effort to provide a stable home for their children to be raised in, "marriages" between people of the same sex are non-sequitors (i.e. there is no such thing as a "marriage" between two people of the same sex).

Yes, assuming "procreation" to prove "procreation" is one way to go. Although, even then, gay couples who adopt and such would still be counter-examples.

4.) The accepting of same-sex marriage promotes the idea that the happiness of the couple getting married, rather than the good of the children or of the public at large, is what is more important. Doing so, however, is pernicious to the public good as it encourages sexual relations outside of marriage and children being born out of wedlock (and thus lacking a stable home or interaction with each of their parents) and is also the cause of many of the social and psychological pathologies that have been rampant for the last 40 years or so.

Again, this is just question-begging. I doubt many people who accept these very ideologically conservative positions need any kind of encouragement to be against SSM. Most proponents of SSM certainly don't accept these points of contention, and even less would advocate govt intrusion to perform the kind of social engineering necessary to remedy these things. You're tilting at windmills here.



Furthermore, what would be the functional difference between a straight couple that refuses to have children, and a gay couple that cannot have children?

Again, the private reasons and goods individuals stand to gain from marrying is irrelevant and do not add up to a single public purpose of marriage. That a married man and woman choose to not have children just is one example of a private reason. Furthermore, between a man and a woman, procreation is always possible, in principle, whereas, between two members of the same sex, procreation is impossible in principle.

Both result in two people living together until they die, with no descendants. The state recognizes one, but not the other, despite the fact that the end result of recognizing either is the same.

No, it is not the same.


Unless you can show an intrinsic value to childless opposite-sex couples that makes them worthy of the full benefits of marriage (as far as the public is concerned), you are creating a double standard.

Well, I've elaborated on this above.
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2013 6:14:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/7/2013 5:18:33 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 7/7/2013 12:47:42 AM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
My saying you have no good arguments to support your bigotry is not a syllogism attempting to establish a conclusion; it is therefore not question-begging; it's a mere fact.

Why should I even bother to attempt to converse with you if you have already come to such conclusions about me and my position? Again, Dakota, you are revealing yourself to be the kind of bigot you no doubt claim to despise.

This isn't the first thread I've seen you on. Yes, I've already formed an opinion you, but it wasn't as immediate or unwarranted as you seem to wish it was.

This question is either asking (a) what is the definition of marriage, or (b) what do I think the definition of marriage should be.

(a) Marriage is as legislature defines it.
(b) I've already expressed my views on how I think people should view marriage: as people formally committing themselves to one another.

Ok.

I.) That commits you to an absurd supposition, namely, that, if you accept this view of marriage, you have no basis (in principle, yet perhaps not in practice) to deny "marriage" to, say, 10 individuals who seek to commit to one another, or a mother and her son who wish to "commit" to one another, or a brother and his brother and half-sister who wish to "commit" to each other, or indeed 189,999 individuals who wish to "commit" to one another.

II.) People "committing" to one another is not of compelling interest to the state to a.) recognize; nor b.) confer benefits to as such does not serve any public good or purpose whatsoever. Why should the public care, for example, that you have fuzzy feelings for or wish to "be committed to" Fred or Courtney? Why should the public care that you had a quarrel with your grandma or that you got angry with the person you are "committed" to? That's not of public interest whatsoever. Indeed, you seem to concede as much with the statement you make below to the effect that you'd like "marriage as a whole to be abolished and left as a completely privately-recognized ceremony."

I have no problem with 18,999 people wishing to commit to each other (why not just say 19,000?), though it seems absurdly unlikely. I don't have a problem with incestuous or polygamous relationships. But again, I'd rather marriage not be recognized by the government at all.

Point-missing? On the contrary, the fact that a single parent, or two parents of the same gender, can raise a child just as successfully as two parents of opposite genders does, in fact, expose your definition of marriage to be incomplete at best.

This is muddleheaded. To begin with, I never conceded that a single parent or that two parents of the same gender can "raise a child just as successfully as two parents of the opposite gender." Indeed, I take such claims to be patently false.

See, this is why people like me, who live in the 21st century, resort to ridiculing people like you, who live in their own little heads. Why do you take such claims to be patently false?
Drayson
Posts: 288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2013 7:51:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago

However, in doing so, they subtly (and often unknowingly) beg the question by assuming that marriage really is just people liking each other a lot and committing to one another. What marriage is is the only really relevant question that needs to be answered when discussing gay marriage, and defenders of gay marriage, when making this appeal, already assume two homosexuals marrying one another is valid, the real issue in contention, before the debate even gets started.


It seems curious that you accuse others of "begging the question" when almost your entire argument is based on the same tactic. I'm not even sure where you get this idea about these so called "assumptions" being made by same-sex marriage supporters.
I think where you've gotten confused is in regards to how a free, democratic society is meant to run. By default, in such a society, each individual is free to do whatever he or she wishes - any restrictions on that come in the form of laws, for which there must be a valid reason. This is why criminal law legislation generally doesn't tell people what they're allowed to do, it usually tells them what they're NOT allowed to do.
For example, there is not a single law anywhere on the books in my country that says I am legally allowed to wear two different colour socks at the same time in public. But I AM allowed to. And I don't need any justification for that freedom
And if the legislature wanted to pass a Bill saying I was no longer allowed to wear two different coloured socks, they'd need a damn good reason to support that new law.

What I'm trying to point out in a roundabout way is, no reason is necessary to allow someone the freedom to do a particular thing. But a good reason is required to restrict any freedom.
And the same applies to same sex marriage - it doesn't matter if the law up until now has prevented gay couples from marrying, the question we're asking now is "Are there any valid reasons for preventing them in the first place". That's the issue.

Similarly, if, as I am convinced of, marriage really exists to attach mothers and fathers to their children and to one another, upon whose stability the children depend, then you can see why it makes perfect sense to restrict two individuals of the same sex to "marry" as they cannot, in principle, fulfill the public purpose of marriage so construed. It would likewise be erroneous to assert that marriage, so understood, would be "unequal" or otherwise "discriminatory" insofar as every single individual would have the exact same rights and restrictions on whom they can marry, regardless of their sexual orientation, namely, that any individual can marry someone of the opposite sex. So understood, gay people are not being discriminated against (at least in this area), nor are they being denied the right to marry. They can marry. They're absolutely free to marry. They, just like any other human being, have to find someone of the opposite sex to marry. It would be discriminatory to deny a gay man the right to wed a woman (that is, marry) simply because he was gay, sure, but a person is not discriminated against if the state says no one has access to something that isn't real or something that no one can have access to.


Ah, I like this argument, because it's a very sneaky trick of logic, but also very easy to dismantle. Saying that there is no discrimination involved in restricting the rights of Group A, because the same restriction applies to Group B, sounds like it makes sense, but doesn't take into account individuals' differing preferences.

It's easy to see how it falls apart once you apply it to something else:

Example:
I don't like books. I really can't stand other people reading books. They're so annoying and smug. I will now make it illegal to read books. No, this law is completely fair, because the same law applies to me too.

OR

I am now the leader of the USA. I don't like Christianity. But I like The ancient Greek Gods. So from now on, the only God(s) people are allowed to worship in this country are Zeus and the other Olympians. Of course, you are also free to not believe at all, and be an atheist. But you are not allowed to read the bible or the Qu'ran, etc, and believe in the Judeo-Christian Gods.
This is not a discriminatory law, because everyone has exactly the same right to believe in Zeus, or not.

Now hopefully you see how silly the argument is.
"I'm not saying I don't trust you...and I'm not saying I do. But I don't"

-Topper Harley
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2013 7:57:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/7/2013 6:06:55 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 7/7/2013 3:51:24 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 7/7/2013 12:18:22 AM, drhead wrote:
At 7/6/2013 4:00:07 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
Similarly, if, as I am convinced of, marriage really exists to attach mothers and fathers to their children and to one another, upon whose stability the children depend, then you can see why it makes perfect sense to restrict two individuals of the same sex to "marry" as they cannot, in principle, fulfill the public purpose of marriage so construed.

Assuming this is true, would a straight couple marrying and then never having kids be as bad as gay marriage?

No, and for at least four reasons:

I.) Between a man and a woman, procreation is always possible in principle. That an individual in a heterosexual happens to be infertile is a mere incidence. That some men and women can't procreate is irrelevant. Just as a damaged eye is still for seeing -- that is still its natural end, whether or not it can realize it, and thus still defines the boundaries of its good use.

What's so valuable about a procreative-type that can't procreate though?

What do you mean by "valuable"? Valuable to whom?

As for homosexuality being "unnatural", even assuming this, again so what? I'm pretty sure my foot's "natural end" isn't to change the channel on my TV. Does this make such use immoral?

No, because changing the channel on your tv with you toe is not to positively frustrate the final cause of feet. This conversation of things being "unnatural" or not is not relevant, however (at least not in the sense you speak of). Usually, when a Natural Law theorist speaks on acts being "unnatural" in the relevant sense, he is attempting to establish that acts such as sodomy (and thus at least some homosexual acts) are immoral. I'm not worried with doing so in this thread, however (although I do, in fact, think that homosexual acts are immoral and demonstrably so, given an essentialist ethical framework).

2.) The private reasons why individuals marry is irrelevant; obviously, a couple may choose to marry for hundreds of reasons (e.g., because I love my girlfriend; because I want social and economic stability; because I want to raise children in a family; because I want to climb a social ladder; because I want to piss my ex-girlfriend off; etc.). There are countless private goods one could pursue by getting married. Those private reasons, however, are irrelevant because those private reasons do not add up to a single public reason to have marriage in the first place; you do not need the institution of marriage to piss of your ex-girlfriend, or to declare your love to your significant other, or for financial stability, etc., and those reasons are not of any interest to the state to confer benefits for whatsoever. It's not the public's business, for example, that you love Courtney, or that you want financial stability.

This is an argument for doing away with all marriage at Govt level, not SSM particularly.

No, this is just to demonstrate that (a) the private reasons and goods one may wish to pursue by getting married (that is, marrying someone of the opposite sex) not only are irrelevant, but do not add up to any public reason to have the institution of marriage; and (b) if marriage just people liking each other and "committing" to one another, then the state has absolutely no reason at all to confer it as those reasons are not of interest whatsoever to the public good (in fact, by that definition, college roommates could be considered "married" to one another).

However, as I have mentioned previously in this thread, if marriage really exists to join men and women to their children and to one another, the union upon which the children depend for stability, then the state has tremendous reasons for conferring marriage, as it would, in a macroscopic sense, not only make society possible, but would also stabilize it by ensuring the protection of the rights of children which they cannot protect on their own.


3.) Assuming marriage really exists to unite men and women to attach them to their children and to one another in an effort to provide a stable home for their children to be raised in, "marriages" between people of the same sex are non-sequitors (i.e. there is no such thing as a "marriage" between two people of the same sex).

Yes, assuming "procreation" to prove "procreation" is one way to go. Although, even then, gay couples who adopt and such would still be counter-examples.

Well, no to begin with because same-sex couples cannot provide a children with a mother and a father. Adoption does not undermine the basic principle that children need and are a product of mothers and fathers. Biology, in effect, is the basic way in which we assign parenthood. Adoption exists to deal with exceptional situations and adoption is a child-centered exception. Adoption exists to give children the parents they need, not the adults they children they want.


4.) The accepting of same-sex marriage promotes the idea that the happiness of the couple getting married, rather than the good of the children or of the public at large, is what is more important. Doing so, however, is pernicious to the public good as it encourages sexual relations outside of marriage and children being born out of wedlock (and thus lacking a stable home or interaction with each of their parents) and is also the cause of many of the social and psychological pathologies that have been rampant for the last 40 years or so.

Again, this is just question-begging.

How so? It's not obviously forthcoming to me how I'm begging the question.

I doubt many people who accept these very ideologically conservative positions need any kind of encouragement to be against SSM. Most proponents of SSM certainly don't accept these points of contention, and even less would advocate govt intrusion to perform the kind of social engineering necessary to remedy these things. You're tilting at windmills here.

These pathologies that I mention haven't come to be rampant because of "lack of government intrusion," but rather because of a social-wide movement to see marriage not as a means to unite men and women to their children and to one another for the stability of their children, but rather as a way to, you know, declare your fuzzy feelings for your significant other and to get divorced after some 15 or so years (no doubt this is the product of the sexual revolution as spearheaded by Margaret Mead and, perhaps even earlier, by the abandonment of final causes since the Enlightenment...but I digress). Anyway, the government "intrudes," to use your jargon, and, in a simplistic sense, recognizes unions between a man and a woman as a special group worthy of special benefits because of the reasons I've mentioned above.
annanicole
Posts: 19,792
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2013 8:14:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Other than taxation and any other government-related advantages/disadvantages (there are both), exactly why would "Bob" want to marry "Steve"?

In other words, can someone list - in descending order of importance - the likely reason that two homosexuals would want to get "married"?
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2013 8:17:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/7/2013 7:51:17 PM, Drayson wrote:

However, in doing so, they subtly (and often unknowingly) beg the question by assuming that marriage really is just people liking each other a lot and committing to one another. What marriage is is the only really relevant question that needs to be answered when discussing gay marriage, and defenders of gay marriage, when making this appeal, already assume two homosexuals marrying one another is valid, the real issue in contention, before the debate even gets started.


It seems curious that you accuse others of "begging the question" when almost your entire argument is based on the same tactic. I'm not even sure where you get this idea about these so called "assumptions" being made by same-sex marriage supporters.
I think where you've gotten confused is in regards to how a free, democratic society is meant to run. By default, in such a society, each individual is free to do whatever he or she wishes - any restrictions on that come in the form of laws, for which there must be a valid reason. This is why criminal law legislation generally doesn't tell people what they're allowed to do, it usually tells them what they're NOT allowed to do.
For example, there is not a single law anywhere on the books in my country that says I am legally allowed to wear two different colour socks at the same time in public. But I AM allowed to. And I don't need any justification for that freedom
And if the legislature wanted to pass a Bill saying I was no longer allowed to wear two different coloured socks, they'd need a damn good reason to support that new law.

What I'm trying to point out in a roundabout way is, no reason is necessary to allow someone the freedom to do a particular thing. But a good reason is required to restrict any freedom.

Right. Homosexuals are free in this country to do whatever they want with themselves. They can have a hundred partners a night. What they are aiming for now is both recognition and support by the state and the citizens of the state. This is not "leave me alone with my man!" This is "recognize me as a special group that deserves special benefits!" They are asking the state and its people to do something, not to not do something.

And the same applies to same sex marriage - it doesn't matter if the law up until now has prevented gay couples from marrying, the question we're asking now is "Are there any valid reasons for preventing them in the first place". That's the issue.

Ok. Well, here's an answer: because that is not what marriage is and to assume that people of the same sex should be able to marry is to beg the question and to assume that marriage is just, say, committing and liking some other individual. All you've done is just push the question-begging and issue back a step.


Similarly, if, as I am convinced of, marriage really exists to attach mothers and fathers to their children and to one another, upon whose stability the children depend, then you can see why it makes perfect sense to restrict two individuals of the same sex to "marry" as they cannot, in principle, fulfill the public purpose of marriage so construed. It would likewise be erroneous to assert that marriage, so understood, would be "unequal" or otherwise "discriminatory" insofar as every single individual would have the exact same rights and restrictions on whom they can marry, regardless of their sexual orientation, namely, that any individual can marry someone of the opposite sex. So understood, gay people are not being discriminated against (at least in this area), nor are they being denied the right to marry. They can marry. They're absolutely free to marry. They, just like any other human being, have to find someone of the opposite sex to marry. It would be discriminatory to deny a gay man the right to wed a woman (that is, marry) simply because he was gay, sure, but a person is not discriminated against if the state says no one has access to something that isn't real or something that no one can have access to.


Ah, I like this argument, because it's a very sneaky trick of logic, but also very easy to dismantle. Saying that there is no discrimination involved in restricting the rights of Group A, because the same restriction applies to Group B, sounds like it makes sense, but doesn't take into account individuals' differing preferences.

Who says it should take into account "individual's differing preferences"? Surely, by this reasoning, if my individual preference is pre-pubescnet girls or horses, then I'm being "discriminated against" by not being allowed to "marry," right? You too are barking up the wrong tree. There is not much contesting that if marriage exists to join a man and a woman to their children and to one another, then it makes perfect sense to restrict individuals of the same sex to marry, be they homosexual or otherwise. What you ought to concentrate on is showing (a) that the grounds upon which one accepts same-sex marriage are coherent; and (b) that marriage as you envision it is of compelling interest to the state to confer and serves a compelling public purpose.


It's easy to see how it falls apart once you apply it to something else:

Example:
I don't like books. I really can't stand other people reading books. They're so annoying and smug. I will now make it illegal to read books. No, this law is completely fair, because the same law applies to me too.

That's a silly analogy. Again, when the government recognizes a marriage, it recognizes a couple as a special group deserving of special benefits because their union serves a compelling public purpose. Having people of the same sex "marrying" one another, however, does not, so same-sex couples are not deserving of special treatment by the government whatsoever. Same-sex activists don't want to government to not do something, but rather do something, namely, to grant treat couples of the same-sex as a special group deserving of special benefits. They shoulder a burden of proof to explain how their receiving of special benefits is of compelling interest to the public good. If you can somehow show that the government has a compelling interest in conferring interests to book-readers, then maybe you'd have a point.


OR

I am now the leader of the USA. I don't like Christianity. But I like The ancient Greek Gods. So from now on, the only God(s) people are allowed to worship in this country are Zeus and the other Olympians. Of course, you are also free to not believe at all, and be an atheist. But you are not allowed to read the bible or the Qu'ran, etc, and believe in the Judeo-Christian Gods.
This is not a discriminatory law, because everyone has exactly the same right to believe in Zeus, or not.

Now hopefully you see how silly the argument is.

No, it is these analogies which are silly because they confuse the government not allowing something and the government actively sanctioning the doing of something.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2013 8:24:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
SSM = Same Sex Marriage

There is a slight of hand maneuver going on that is a bit more clear to me now on the anti same sex marriage side.

People want to use procreation and child rearing to justify denying same sex marriage, yet those same people don't deny marriage to a male & female who.....

1) Won't or can't have children
2) Will do a bad job at child raising

This raises my suspicion that procreation and child rearing are just excuses. They selectively apply when to use these factors. When it comes to interfiles (hetro couple) then it's of no importance, when it comes to a gay people, well golly we just can't let that happen. HOW SELECTIVE.

It's at this point some people advocate the (hetro couple)infertiles get a pass on the "in principle" or "in type" or some other abstract notion.

It merely claim that a gay couple doesn't met the requirement of this abstract notion. Well I merely claim that an infertile couple doesn't met the abstract notion of "in principle"

If you disagree I ask the following....

1) How do you determine whether something is a certain "type" or whether something fulfills something "in principle ? Is their an objective criteria, or is it at your own subjective whim ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2013 8:26:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
interfiles ? damm you spell check. Infertiles
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2013 8:34:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/7/2013 4:48:40 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 7/7/2013 4:21:29 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 7/7/2013 2:59:59 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 7/7/2013 2:26:14 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
You make a very good point.

Gay marriage opponents , do not deny the right to Gays to marry, but deny the right to anybody to call a same sex union a marriage.And a same sex union isn't equal and will never be equal to a heterosexual couple union. and marriage was set to tie the members of the heterosexual union with sacred ties to save the rights of the couple and the children, even if the union ends, the kids still are called upon their true father and mother which are their family.A same sex union isn't a family and will never be, it is the destruction of family.

Actually, that's not a good point at all; it's just a way to mask one's discrimination.

Imagine if the legal definition of marriage was "a union between two spouses, both of which must be of the same ethnical race". You could say this definition does not discriminate against any particular individual; after all, every individual is granted the exact same right: to marry someone else that happens to be of the same ethnical race as him-/herself. But it does clearly discriminate against particular couples (any couple of differing ethnicities), and, my association, it does actually discriminate against the individuals who are part of those couples.

The two situations are incomparable.

And yet I compared them.

You are comparing a biologically invalid family with a valid one!

I was showing that, theoretically, discrimination can be present even when each individual is afforded the exact same rights. Your comparing "biologically invalid families" and "biologically valid" ones (whatever that means) is irrelevant to that.

You are assuming being anti-gay marriage is a discrimination, it isn't dude, it is being just.

and a biologically valid family is a family where the human being is identified with his true ancestors, ie mother and father.

Gay marriage is a fake story that fakes people identity.