Marriage equality, and the SCotUS

[Ginger_Warrior]

And in other news, Russia doesn't want its children adopted by homosexuals.

 

http://rt.com/politi...rt-foreign-973/

They also banned American citizens from adopting Russian children at all, regardless of sexuality.

 

Does this then also mean that having American foster parents causes detrimental effects on an adopted child?

[obfuscator]

I'm all for them having civil unions. I also think that civil unions should be the only thing recognised by the states. Sexual preference is not a lifestyle, nor is it a choice, or a fetish. Sexual preference is something hardwired to the brain. There are also over 4,000 known species of animals to perform homosexual acts. It must be called marriage, because marriage is recognised by the state and has certain benefits awarded to it not awarded with civil unions.

 

I'm pretty sure every species of animal has been known to eat its own shit at some point too....the "animals do it" argument is pretty weak as a result.

 

And there are some sexual attractions which are fetishes, and we all have a choice as to how we manifest our sexual attractions and incorporate them into our lifestyle.

[Kaida23]

Does this then also mean that having American foster parents causes detrimental effects on an adopted child?

 

Considering how screwed up American children are nowadays, I'd have to say yes. :P

[Furah]

I'm all for them having civil unions. I also think that civil unions should be the only thing recognised by the states. Sexual preference is not a lifestyle, nor is it a choice, or a fetish. Sexual preference is something hardwired to the brain. There are also over 4,000 known species of animals to perform homosexual acts. It must be called marriage, because marriage is recognised by the state and has certain benefits awarded to it not awarded with civil unions.

 

I'm pretty sure every species of animal has been known to eat its own shit at some point too....the "animals do it" argument is pretty weak as a result.

 

And there are some sexual attractions which are fetishes, and we all have a choice as to how we manifest our sexual attractions and incorporate them into our lifestyle.

 

Sorry, I said animals anticipating an unnatural discussion. By sexual preference I was meaning which gender(s) you're interested in. Not what floats your boat.

[sees_all1]

Sees, do you want the benefits to married couples removed?

Yes, I don't think the government should have behavioral incentives/punishments.

[Omar]

So, to summarize:

- you think the benefits which come with marriage are meant to be targeted to people who have or are trying to have children, and that marital status is the proxy by which the government verifies that.

- with this in mind, it would be absurd to allow gays to "marry", because the way the government defines it that has a lot to do with procreation, which for obvious reasons doesn't apply here

- but marriage shouldn't be defined as a union for procreation to begin with because social engineering isn't what the government should be doing

- therefore marriage needs to be redefined as union between two people and then gays should be allowed to marry, but then that begs the question: why would anyone want to do it considering it doesn't actually change anything as a matter of fact?

 

My answer to that last question is that it doesn't matter and that heterosexuals and homosexuals alike are entitled to their strange rituals. :P

[sees_all1]

First two are nearly spot on.

 

- but marriage shouldn't be defined as a union for procreation to begin with because social engineering isn't what the government should be doing

The government shouldn't be giving tax benefits to married people, or more broadly people in a civil union. Either behavior should be legal or illegal, but not "encouraged" or "discouraged."

 

- therefore marriage needs to be redefined as union between two people and then gays should be allowed to marry, but then that begs the question: why would anyone want to do it considering it doesn't actually change anything as a matter of fact?

The government should recognize civil unions for other legal purposes (i.e. who can visit you in a hospital, who receives your estate by default on death, and who shouldn't have to testify against you in court) but not discriminate between traditionally defined marriage or otherwise.

 

 

My answer to that last question is that it doesn't matter and that heterosexuals and homosexuals alike are entitled to their strange rituals. :P

I'd argue marriage is first and foremost a religious sacrament and celebration, and churches should be allowed to define it as they see fit.

[Omar]

Whatever, so long as there are no policy implications you could invent new words for all I care.

[obfuscator]

One reason that I think religious people are so fervently against gay marriage is because if it's legalized that opens them up to possibly being forced to perform gay marriages (and their freedom of religion being violated in the process).

[Omar]

It shouldn't. Marrying people is a service, not a duty.

[obfuscator]

It shouldn't. Marrying people is a service, not a duty.

 

I agree. However, it's clear that these rights do come into conflict and some people will push the issue:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_and_Chymyshyn_v._Knights_of_Columbus_and_Hauser_and_Lazar

 

[Omar]

Ugh. A gay couple going into a church and asking for a traditional marriage is like a woman going into a hospital and asking for a vasectomy.

Classic case of positive vs. negative freedom, by the way.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Except there are denominations of the Christian faith that have no issue with gay marriage. Let's not tar all Christians with the same brush, here.

 

The premise of the pro-gay marriage argument is that nobody should be allowed to enforce their own personal values in regards to sexuality on other people. Followers of churches who do not support gay marriage should have no right to block churches who do support gay marriage from carrying out those ceremonies. Anyone who argues against that premise is doing so in complete ignorance to the human right of free religious practice. A gay marriage carried out by an (argument's sake) Quaker church is no business of an (argument's sake) Catholic church; why should the latter be allowed to prevent the former from carrying out that ceremony?

 

In line with that, I should have no right as someone who does support gay marriage to tell a priest in a church that does not support gay marriage that (s)he must carry out a service they feel is fundamentally against what they stand for.

[Omar]

I don't think there are enough homophobes on TIF to keep arguing ITT.

[constrictor]

So, curious question, that personally I just want your guys' thoughts on:

 

What makes two the magic number?

How come the marriage of two, male/male, female/female, male/female, is the basis o all these arguments?

 

What if three people want to live together and want each other to receive property if they decease? Should they be married?

 

Where is the line drawn there?

 

Also another curious question:

If gay marriage is allowed, for the sake of love per se, is it ok for mothers to marry daughters or fathers/sons, etc.?

[Omar]

So, curious question, that personally I just want your guys' thoughts on:

 

What makes two the magic number?

How come the marriage of two, male/male, female/female, male/female, is the basis o all these arguments?

The positive answer is that that's how many people you need to procreate. The prescriptive one is that it doesn't matter, but for simplicity's sake we should probably call those less common cases something else.

What if three people want to live together and want each other to receive property if they decease? Should they be married?

They should sign some sort of contract, just like marriage is essentially a contract with a lot of fluff.

 

Also another curious question:

If gay marriage is allowed, for the sake of love per se, is it ok for mothers to marry daughters or fathers/sons, etc.?

Again, marriage is just a contract; all it really defines is property rights. What you're asking is whether incest is okay. I would say yes, for consensual cases.

[constrictor]

So, curious question, that personally I just want your guys' thoughts on:

 

What makes two the magic number?

How come the marriage of two, male/male, female/female, male/female, is the basis o all these arguments?

The positive answer is that that's how many people you need to procreate. The prescriptive one is that it doesn't matter, but for simplicity's sake we should probably call those less common cases something else.

What if three people want to live together and want each other to receive property if they decease? Should they be married?

They should sign some sort of contract, just like marriage is essentially a contract with a lot of fluff.

 

Also another curious question:

If gay marriage is allowed, for the sake of love per se, is it ok for mothers to marry daughters or fathers/sons, etc.?

Again, marriage is just a contract; all it really defines is property rights. What you're asking is whether incest is okay. I would say yes, for consensual cases.

 

 

And what about when they become common?

 

 

Also what makes something wrong or right then?

[Kaida23]

Also what makes something wrong or right then?

 

Setting the obvious legal definitions aside? Personal morality and belief, which is hard to quantify and different for everyone.

[constrictor]

Also what makes something wrong or right then?

 

Setting the obvious legal definitions aside? Personal morality and belief, which is hard to quantify and different for everyone.

 

So is it possible to make a decisive decision on the issue if we don't know a whether it's a legal or moral issue?

 

And if it is a moral issue, how do we define it then.

X must equal Y

So if a moral issue is Y and we dont have a moral base to base it off then X doesn't exist.

 

Thus Y is impossible to define, no?

 

Reasons these types of debate just make me lols.

[nine naked men]

Gay marriage isn't comparable to parent/child relationships, both in consent issues that would arise and biological issues that would arise in any offspring.

 

As for polygamy, I don't really have any strong opinion in the matter, though there's some interesting stuff here.

[constrictor]

Gay marriage isn't comparable to parent/child relationships, both in consent issues that would arise and biological issues that would arise in any offspring.

 

As for polygamy, I don't really have any strong opinion in the matter, though there's some interesting stuff here.

 

I wasn't trying to compare them; I was just saying that if gay marriage is ok, then it is it slightly logical that eventually the question will become: for a consenting (read as 18+) daughter, is it ok for her to marry her mother, per say?

And if that becomes a question, how come it is anymore wrong/right then gay marriage?

 

 

Also another curious question. I don't want to go pinning labels on people, but since Christians tend to make a huge kerfuffle about gay marriage I am going to use them as a primary example.

 

So a large argument for gay marriage is civil rights, that one person, a homosexual (for example), has the same marital rights as a heterosexual. I would also argue that gays just general don't want to be ostracized for their actions - nobody wants to be (generalization, but then again this is generally true). So another aspect to the argument is that gays want to have rights to marriage so that they can "be like everyone else" per se.

 

So, what if the Christian community decided to call marriage something different?

Bear with me here.

Let's play this out a little.

Let's say they decide to call marriage, spunk. BUT, keep in mind, this is the Christian community alone doing this, all other societal groups are continuing to call it by it's name. In doing this, the Christian community is purposefully ostracizing itself from the rest of society.

 

Ok. So if this were to happen, the question is, would gays be content with having rights to just marriage? Or would they want the rights to call it spunk or whatever name is given?

Even if that name [spunk] isn't the name [marriage] that ALL culture, besides the mid-sized Christian community, calls it?

[Ginger_Warrior]

I'll repeat my warning on the use of the term "Christianity". It's like me suggesting that Americans tend to eat McDonald's so I'll pick on all Americans as an example of fast food and rising obesity rates.

[constrictor]

I'll repeat my warning on the use of the term "Christianity". It's like me suggesting that Americans tend to eat McDonald's so I'll pick on all Americans as an example of fast food and rising obesity rates.

 

What's that supposed to mean?

 

It is a hypothetical question, and in hypothetical questions generalizations are entirely applicable. So if you were building a hypothetical situation about fastfood and generalized that Americans eat more of it blahblahblah, that is entirely ok, as long as it is hypothetical and not a claim to fact.

 

And who are you to warn?

Because your opinion on how the term Christianity matters?

 

 

Still, I am curious, regardless of your offhanded comment, as to your thoughts.

[nine naked men]

Gay marriage isn't comparable to parent/child relationships, both in consent issues that would arise and biological issues that would arise in any offspring.

 

As for polygamy, I don't really have any strong opinion in the matter, though there's some interesting stuff here.

 

I wasn't trying to compare them; I was just saying that if gay marriage is ok, then it is it slightly logical that eventually the question will become: for a consenting (read as 18+) daughter, is it ok for her to marry her mother, per say?

And if that becomes a question, how come it is anymore wrong/right then gay marriage?

I would say that is only likely to occur in incredibly dysfunctional households/families, and that the parent would have been in a position of power over the daughter her entire life, still making the issue of consent a cloudy one.

 

Your one-in-a-billion fairytale incest case still doesn't make it comparable.

[Ginger_Warrior]

It is a hypothetical question, and in hypothetical questions generalizations are entirely applicable. So if you were building a hypothetical situation about fastfood and generalized that Americans eat more of it blahblahblah, that is entirely ok, as long as it is hypothetical and not a claim to fact.

It's not my "opinion" on the term Christianity; it's established fact that different denominations of the Christian faith feel differently about marriage. Your hypothetical style of arguing is deeply inaccurate because you're suggesting, in essence, that Quakers and Catholics think "generally" the same things as each other because they just so happen to both be Christian as well.

 

You're treating the Christian faith itself as completely black or completely white, when in reality, some parts of the Christian faith are darker shades of grey than other parts. The fact you're doing so hypothetically doesn't remove from the fallacy you're committing.