Where is possible the gay marriage?

[mindseye]

Despite routine abuse, the concept of "equality" is not a magical imprimatur which can be stamped on every argument.

Your argument is exactly parallel to one of the arguments offered in Loving vs. Virginia, which was rejected by the Supreme Court as not legally valid. The defendants in Loving argued that the law was "truly" equal, since a white person could marry someone of their own race, and so could a black person.

From the majority ruling in that case:

Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

And so, despite the "equality" of the marriage rights in Virginia at the time, the law was found to be an infringement of individual freedom.

 

[B_spiker067]

You're conflating laws with morals. They're different. Driving in the left-hand lane (in the US) is against the law, even though there's nothing particularly more moral about driving in the right-hand lane.

Marriage laws deal with issues that have nothing to do with morality, and certainly not "love". The Social Security Administration doesn't knock on your door to verify that you "love" your spouse, for example, -- as long as you've got the legal standing, you're entitled to claim benefits.

My "bureaucratic argument" is exactly the stuff that laws are made of. The fight for same-sex marriage is a fight for equitable treatment, not a fight for love. Indeed, we've already got love; what we don't have are the rights that go along with it.

I threw love and coupling in there to give me a compelling reason to agree to gay marriage.

Otherwise, I see no reason that two men or two women should be considered the same as a woman and man in marriage. It might as well be a woman and four men or whatever.

It might not be fair but it is not yet to my mind discriminatory. I'd be likelier to vote to take away the benefits from heterosexual marriage (where there a no children) before voting for gay marriage. You see the rights you are looking for aren't free many seem to be about monetary gain, others seem to be contractually available. So if your "bureaucratic argument" is exactly the stuff that laws are made off so is my pragmatic "I want my money to spend on me not on you and your partner heterosexual or not".

That said I'm still open to arguments in this debate. It is not a closed item.

(I would pay for it even if it is in the higher cost of products sold on the market and not just taxes.)

 

[B_spiker067]

The various US governments basically recognize what the Protestant churches recognized two centuries ago. It comes down to little more than custom. Whether or not any government should have anything at all to say about marriage or any other of your domestic arrangements was apparently never seriously considered. You won't find it in the Federalist Papers or the Kentucky Resolutions or any of the other early documents. All those Dead White Guys considered it too fundamental a question to consider. They were supporters of disestablishmentarianism, but only in its most extreme sense - that of forbidding the government from setting up an official state religion. It perhaps never occurred to any of them that a person might have no religion at all. It didn't really lead to any problems until the three wars with the Mormons, and even those might have been more about secular matters like the abolition of slavery - a volatile subject in those days - than about religious practices.

Unfortunately, separating the issue of gay marriage from other un-Protestant practices like polygamy has proven to be an intractable problem. Too many proselytizers of gay marriage simply insist that they are obviously different, and insist, and insist ... which hardly constitutes a coherent argument.

Personally I don't give a monkey's flip if a woman wants to marry an entire football team, or a man wants to marry a sheep. But I have too much respect for the English language as a precision instrument of communication to condone calling any of that "marriage". Simply redefining words so that they mean what you want - the basic tactic behind the discovery of new "rights" in the federal and state constitutions - is horribly dangerous, because if rights can be so easily generated by changing the English language to make them real, then rights can also be removed in exactly the same way. A written constitution is of value only if the words have more-or-less immutable meanings, even if those meanings aren't very PC.

A lot of good background info and points. I especially like the idea of the dangers in redefining words when it comes to rights in the granting of and in the taking away of them.

 

[B_spiker067]

He can't marry someone who's dead, or is already married (whether those are equivalent states is a question for another time),

You can't bury something this funny in all that text! LOL

 

[mindseye]

A lot of good background info and points. I especially like the idea of the dangers in redefining words when it comes to rights in the granting of and in the taking away of them.

I'm guessing that either one of you would gladly support redefining a word if it didn't interfere with your agenda. When was the last time either one of you spoke out against the Constitution for having redefined terms found in the Articles of Confederation?

 

[B_spiker067]

I'm guessing that either one of you would gladly support redefining a word if it didn't interfere with your agenda.

You say that like its a bad thing and like you don't have an agenda.
My agenda happens to just to be subversive to the predominant ideology in any given forum.

When was the last time either one of you spoke out against the Constitution for having redefined terms found in the Articles of Confederation?

I'm lost here. I could Google to try and understand it but would just prefer an explanation of your meaning.

 

[B_spiker067]

Your argument is exactly parallel to one of the arguments offered in Loving vs. Virginia, which was rejected by the Supreme Court as not legally valid. The defendants in Loving argued that the law was "truly" equal, since a white person could marry someone of their own race, and so could a black person.

From the majority ruling in that case:



And so, despite the "equality" of the marriage rights in Virginia at the time, the law was found to be an infringement of individual freedom.

Miscegenation and its legal arguments are outside of my knowledge base. But I would say that a black man and a white woman can give birth to a fertile child. Can a gay couple do this?

 

[B_spiker067]

You're conflating laws with morals. They're different. Driving in the left-hand lane (in the US) is against the law, even though there's nothing particularly more moral about driving in the right-hand lane.

Could you not say that willfully driving in the wrong lane is morally wrong if it endangers people and done for that purpose as a cheap danger thrill? Not that this matters in this discussion.

Aren't many laws the expression of a chosen morality?

Yeah, since the dowry marriage has been a business contract. Nothing revelatory here.

 

[B_spiker067]

I'm guessing that either one of you would gladly support redefining a word if it didn't interfere with your agenda. When was the last time either one of you spoke out against the Constitution for having redefined terms found in the Articles of Confederation?

Also, I think you meant to say, " I'm guessing the neither of you would mind redefining a word if it did support your agenda.":tongue:

 

[D_alex8]

I especially like the idea of the dangers in redefining words when it comes to rights in the granting of and in the taking away of them.

My use of the word "equality" in my previous post was, specifically and in the context I employed it, a translation of the German "Gleichbehandlung" (literally, "equal treatment") as per the federal Allgemeines Gleichbehandlungsgesetz (Equal Treatment Act, commonly referred to as the 'Anti-Discrimination Act') of 2006.

This legislation is aimed at prohibiting "unjustified discrimination on the grounds of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, philosophical worldview, any form of handicap, age, or sexual identity" [click for original German wording]. Similar legislation is about to be implemented in the UK.

Since "life-partners" of any gender have been regarded as "equal" under German law since the Lebenspartnerschaftsgesetz (Life-Partners Act) of 2001, to fail to extend this to its logical conclusion, whereby "a life-partner may marry a life-partner", stands at odds with the Equal Treatment Act of 2006, by extending the possibility of marriage only under the rubric "a male life-partner may marry a female life-partner". Thus, I am not redefining 'equality' beyond the definitional boundaries that have already been established for the term within (German) national law.

Of course, the conservative Christian Democrat party insisted on the inclusion of the single word "unjustified" within the Equal Treatment Act, thereby allowing double standards to be maintained through the assertion that certain acts of discrimination are apparently "justifiable".

 

[titan1968]

Spiker, ask yourself these questions: if a man and a woman marry, but cannot or won't have any children because of their age or their beliefs, is their marriage still valid? Are they even a couple? Do people only marry to have children? Does a homosexual marriage take anything away from a traditional marriage?

In my homeland of Canada, the opponents of same sex marriage did use polygamy/ polyandry as one of their arguments against same sex marriage, which, in my view, is absurd. The issue isn't about giving rights to people, it's about treating everyone equally in the eyes of the law, regardless of sexual orientation.

However, a homosexual couple can't force a priest to marry them if he doesn't want to; consequently, the rights of both parties are respected. This is a Canadian achievement.

What was once folly is now accepted in our societies. A few decades ago (not that long ago!), women became full citizens in the eyes of the law; before that time they married at 15 or 16 (only to become wards of their husbands) and were expected to produce large families. Should we go back to those 'good old days'?

Spiker, if you want an example of a contradiction or an 'arbitrarily-chosen norm', Sunday shopping is a perfect one. According to the Bible, isn't Sunday supposed to be the 'Lord's Day' or the 'Day of rest'? Why is the so-called religious right silent on that issue?

You are missing the point in part. It is illegal to marry a minor and polygamy is illegal. Why should society recognize gay marriage and not multiple partner marriages or marriages between 16 year olds? Were these just arbitrarily chosen norms?

As far as I'm concerned couples should only be given monetary benefits if they have children, otherwise what is point? The benefits given heterosexual couples had a rationale when high birth rates were the norm and men and women had gender based roles to fulfill (which discriminated against women).

As a single, childless person why should I pay for couples who have no children? And even if they have children why should I pay for it?

 

[B_spiker067]

Spiker, ask yourself these questions: if a man and a woman marry, but cannot or won't have any children because of their age or their beliefs, is their marriage still valid? Are they even a couple? Do people only marry to have children? Does a homosexual marriage take anything away from a traditional marriage?

In my homeland of Canada, the opponents of same sex marriage did use polygamy/ polyandry as one of their arguments against same sex marriage, which, in my view, is absurd. The issue isn't about giving rights to people, it's about treating everyone equally in the eyes of the law, regardless of sexual orientation.

In Canada, a homosexual couple can't force a priest to marry them if he doesn't want to; consequently, the rights of both parties are respected. This is an achievement.

What was once folly is now accepted in our societies. A few decades ago (not that long ago!), women became full citizens in the eyes of the law; before that time they married at 15 or 16 (only to become wards of their husbands) and were expected to produce large families. Should we go back to those 'good old days'?

Spiker, if you want an example of a contradiction or an 'arbitrarily-chosen norm', Sunday shopping is a perfect one. According to the Bible, isn't Sunday supposed to be the 'Lord's Day' or the 'Day of rest'? Why is the so-calledbreligious right silent on that issue?

But what is so special about gay coupling that makes it more significant than a man and his four wives? Why is two a magic number? Its only magic because it furthers an agenda.

Yeah, hetero couples get married and don't have children. But then when society is deciding on how to legislate things it might just be more reasonable, if not easier, to leave the devil to the details. I'm not really interested in supporting couples and their families anyways. I think goverment recognized/subsidized marriage should be abolished period. If you aren't religiously minded then just make a promise to each other and pinky swear.

Not everything needs to be made fair.

[edit: Mine isn't a religious position at this point so Sunday is just another day for me too.]

 

[kalipygian]

Spiker and big dirigibale in this thread are just about too ridiculous to bother to try to engage. I think they are both playing games trying to get a rise out of people by being annoying. Spiker keeps shifting his position around, or maybe he forgot what he said in his earlier posts.

All societies are continually evolving. To maintain that because the US constitution was written following the 18thc enlightenment that we should be locked in to only the views of that period is an impossibility. If that were really the case, I being by chance a descendant of (mostly) northern europeans would have the 'right' to own human beings whose ancestors came from other continents, and as male and a property owner, I would have the 'right' to vote and hold office, but somone who rents their abode or is female or whose ancestors were from anywhere other than europe would not.

Neither of you as individuals has the right to deny equal rights to others.

It is very absurd of the Mormon church, whose Brigham Young had 42 wives(if I remember right, maybe he was 35 and it was another founding elder who had the 42) to be spending millions in electoral politics to deny equal rights to us homies.

Domestic partnership status is a half step, after a few years when the idiots who claim it will be 'the end of civilisation as we know it' are demonstrated to be wrong, something closer to full equal rights can be obtained.

About the miscenegenation laws, white people could only marry white people, anyone else could marry anyone else. It seems like the people who made up those laws were discriminating against themselves.

Most societes through history have not had a church that had absolute control over such things as marraige, it was a long evolution for christianity, it was not until the tridentine ecumenical council that it was defined as a sacrament, so for 3/4 of the history of christianity it was not. Some early christians were actually opposed to even having children at all, 'entrapping pure souls in corrupt flesh'. It is still considered purer to not have children, as is required for all who are in orders.

Same sex marraige was quite common, for example, in the roman empire during it's heyday, it was outlawed by the later christian byzantine emperors, in the period of it's decline.

Ideally all people shoud have equal treatment, discriminating on account of marital status should be history. Funding old age care, education for children, medical coverage, EtC. should be spread around through society and through a person's lifetime.

 

[B_Ray6955]

Someone said, "I think they are both playing games trying to get a rise out of people by being annoying."

I certainly hope that no one is doing that because, as I was told by a moderator, that is behavior which violates the TOS and is not allowed in chat. I was told that behavior is proof positive of trolling.

I also hope that is not a rule which only applies to chat and not also to the forum area.

Or was the moderator incorrect?

RAY

 

[B_spiker067]

Spiker and big dirigibale in this thread are just about too ridiculous to bother to try to engage. I think they are both playing games trying to get a rise out of people by being annoying. Spiker keeps shifting his position around, or maybe he forgot what he said in his earlier posts.

All societies are continually evolving. To maintain that because the US constitution was written following the 18thc enlightenment that we should be locked in to only the views of that period is an impossibility. If that were really the case, I being by chance a descendant of (mostly) northern europeans would have the 'right' to own human beings whose ancestors came from other continents, and as male and a property owner, I would have the 'right' to vote and hold office, but somone who rents their abode or is female or whose ancestors were from anywhere other than europe would not.

Neither of you as individuals has the right to deny equal rights to others.

It is very absurd of the Mormon church, whose Brigham Young had 42 wives(if I remember right, maybe he was 35 and it was another founding elder who had the 42) to be spending millions in electoral politics to deny equal rights to us homies.

Domestic partnership status is a half step, after a few years when the idiots who claim it will be 'the end of civilisation as we know it' are demonstrated to be wrong, something closer to full equal rights can be obtained.

About the miscenegenation laws, white people could only marry white people, anyone else could marry anyone else. It seems like the people who made up those laws were discriminating against themselves.

Most societes through history have not had a church that had absolute control over such things as marraige, it was a long evolution for christianity, it was not until the tridentine ecumenical council that it was defined as a sacrament, so for 3/4 of the history of christianity it was not. Some early christians were actually opposed to even having children at all, 'entrapping pure souls in corrupt flesh'.

Ideally all people shoud have equal treatment, discriminating on account of marital status should be history. Funding old age care, education for children, medical coverage, EtC. should be spread around through society and through a person's lifetime.

Your problem is you think that it is only the religious right that is hesitant about gay marriage. There are secular reasons to be hesitant.

 

[B_Ray6955]

No, my darling!!! It was *NOT* you!!! I'm talking about someone and something else, totally.

RAY

I do believe this may have been me?

 

[B_spiker067]

Funny how Spiker and BD weren't exonerated out of hand as being trolls to this point on the thread by a mod's response to inquiry.

Double standards?

(Yeah, third person speak. Can't stand it either.)

 

[B_spiker067]

Now see there? That was a troll on a mod

All it would have needed was the forgotten smiley face and it would not have been.

 

[B_Ray6955]

As always, you are polite and respectful in all of your dealings with people (well, in those I've encountered and/or witnessed). There have been times when I've been in chat at the same time as you and wonder how you keep your temper under control with things that occur or are said directly to you. Plus, I'd have already discussed this with you if it had been you.

Have a fabulous day! Oh, and say HI to hubby for me! LOL!!!

RAY

Fair enough, I stand corrected, you can see why I thought it may have been though :wink:

 

[B_Ray6955]

All I did was say HI! LOL!!!! He's so paranoid! ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Since he doesn't want me, I've sooooo over him. (Ok, I'm lying!) LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Besides ... you're far more fun!

RAY

LOL, he says "Hi, and no I'm still holding out lol" (well he didn't say lol but he did laugh

And thank you :smile: