Federal judge overturns Utah's ban on gay marriage

[josh987654321]

rossum:

.

I think u’ll find rossum, that in the effort to define civil marriage how you want it to be defined, you will end up destroying civil marriage altogether, because if people hold that the definition of civil marriage is completely arbitrary, than there are no rational arguments in which to place any limit on it at all and I think u’ll find that once civil marriage can become anything, than pretty soon it becomes nothing.

I believe when it comes to civil same sex marriage, people are chaginging the structure without considering the foundations, in which the whole thing will eventually come crashing down.

I believe it’s only wise to address the foundations before changing the structure of civil marriage.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[rossum]

Instead of continuing to obfuscate, explain what you think defines marriage vis a vis all other relationships.

All other relationships?

Marriage: say, a tribal marriage in New Guinea.
Other relationship: say, a gorilla mother and her baby.

How many pigs is the New Guinea bride worth compared to the gorilla mother?

Your question is far too wide ranging and needs to be a lot more specific. In particular it ranges far beyond the subject of same sex marriage in Utah.

I have not seen many arguments from the anti-same-sex marriage side that add to the case that Judge Shelby has already rejected. Even the case that Utah has put to appeal basically covers the same ground. Do you have any new arguments to add?

rossum

 

[josh987654321]

Your question is far too wide ranging and needs to be a lot more specific.

rossum

May I ask, what limitations would you put on civil marriage and why? are there any?

Thak you for reading
Josh

 

[LisaA]

All other relationships?

Marriage: say, a tribal marriage in New Guinea.
Other relationship: say, a gorilla mother and her baby.

How many pigs is the New Guinea bride worth compared to the gorilla mother?

Your question is far too wide ranging and needs to be a lot more specific. In particular it ranges far beyond the subject of same sex marriage in Utah.

I have not seen many arguments from the anti-same-sex marriage side that add to the case that Judge Shelby has already rejected. Even the case that Utah has put to appeal basically covers the same ground. Do you have any new arguments to add?

rossum

argumentum ad absurdum

You obviously do not have a cogent argument for your position since you either dodge the questions or change the subject.

Josh and others have asked what is the purpose of marriage? What makes it unique among other relationships. I think it goes without saying that we mean HUMAN relationships and since we are speaking of an American law, perhaps if it’s not obvious, animals in New Guinea are not relevant.

I maintain that male female traditional marriage has a uniqueness in its differing gender, complimentary relationship in which children may be conceived and raised that ties parents to their biological children… Marriage was created and developed as a protection for women and children specifically. Biologically, historically, emotionally, and theologically this is unique to man/woman marriage.

Opening up the term to any relationship where a couple wishes to obtain taxpayer supported benefits as long as they are having some kind of same sex relationship rather demeans the whole concept.

As to Judge Shelby, he is just one man with an opinion.

Lisa

 

[josh987654321]

I have not seen many arguments from the anti-same-sex marriage side that add to the case that Judge Shelby has already rejected. Even the case that Utah has put to appeal basically covers the same ground. Do you have any new arguments to add?

rossum

Do you have a link where I could read up on the arguments Judge Shelby has rejected and why he did so?

Thank you
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

I have not seen many arguments from the anti-same-sex marriage side that add to the case that Judge Shelby has already rejected. Even the case that Utah has put to appeal basically covers the same ground. Do you have any new arguments to add?

Do you have a link where I could read up on the arguments Judge Shelby has rejected and why he did so?

Thank you
Josh

Oh my apologies, I know what ur reffering to now, post #641

news.yahoo.com/big-utah-gay-marriage-battle-fundamental-marry-151150787.html;_ylt=AwrSyCT8pcVS2yIAT9_QtDMD

“[Shelby] He found that gay couples in Utah enjoy a fundamental right to marry and a fundamental right to have their marriages recognized by their state government.”

Like I said in my first post, before you can recognise someones rights to marriage, don’t you have to first define what a marriage is?

Isn’t it only common sense to address the foundations of civil marriage before changing the structure? if the foundations are gone than the whole structure will just come crashing down.

Ravi Zacharias has a good one in this regard -

*An utterly fascinating illustration of this duping of ourselves is the latest arts building opened at Ohio State University, the Wexner Center for the Performing Arts, another one of our chimerical exploits in the name of intellectual advance. Newsweek branded this building “America’s first deconstructionist building.” It’s white scaffolding, red brick turrets, and Colorado grass pods evoke a double take. But puzzlement only intensifies when you enter the building, for inside you encounter stairways that go nowhere, pillars that hang from the ceiling without purpose, and angled surfaces configured to create a sense of vertigo. The architect, we are duly informed, designed this building to reflect life itself-senseless and incoherent-and the “capriciousness of the rules that organize the built world.” When the rationale was explained to me, I had just one question: Did he do the same with the foundation?

The laughter in response to my question unmasked the double standard our deconstructionists espouse. And that is precisely the double standard of atheism! It is possible to dress up and romanticize our bizarre experiments in social restructuring while disavowing truth or absolutes. But one dares not play such deadly games with the foundations of good thinking.* Ravi Zacharias

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[SuperLuigi]

All other relationships?

Marriage: say, a tribal marriage in New Guinea.
Other relationship: say, a gorilla mother and her baby.

How many pigs is the New Guinea bride worth compared to the gorilla mother?

That’s the problem with the progressive left—trying to force marginal ideas on the mainstream.

 

[SuperLuigi]

As to Judge Shelby, he is just one man with an opinion.

Unfortunately, that’s all the progressives need to excuse their agenda.

 

[gracepoole]

As to definition, why not just start with Wikipedia’s version as crafted by the sources listed here:

Marriage (also called matrimony or wedlock) is a socially or ritually recognized union or legal contract between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between them, between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws. The definition of marriage varies according to different cultures, but it is principally an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged. In some cultures, marriage is recommended or compulsory before pursuing any sexual activity. When defined broadly, marriage is considered a cultural universal. A broad definition of marriage includes those that are monogamous, polygamous, same-sex and temporary.

People marry for many reasons, including: legal, social, libidinal, emotional, financial, spiritual, and religious. Who they marry may be influenced by socially determined rules of incest, prescriptive marriage rules, parental choice and individual desire. In many parts of the world, marriages are arranged. Forced marriages are illegal in some jurisdictions.

Marriage can be recognized by a state, an organization, a religious authority, a tribal group, a local community or peers. It is often viewed as a contract.

 

[josh987654321]

As to definition, why not just start with Wikipedia’s version as crafted by the sources listed here:

Marriage (also called matrimony or wedlock) is a socially or ritually recognized union or legal contract between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between them, between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws. The definition of marriage varies according to different cultures, but it is principally an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged. In some cultures, marriage is recommended or compulsory before pursuing any sexual activity. When defined broadly, marriage is considered a cultural universal. A broad definition of marriage includes those that are monogamous, polygamous, same-sex and temporary.

What is the logical basis behind such definition of civil marriage?

Is any union someone at any whim or fancy wishes to call a marriage a valid claim? and if not, why not?

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[_Abyssinia]

Thanks for the link gracepoole, I haven’t read through all of the link yet, I however wholeheartedly agree with LisaA.

Thanks _Abyssinia, do you have any links I can read up on what happened there? I think LisaA explained it well.

Thank you for reading
Josh

You can read aboiut what happened with Catholic Charities here

thomasmoresociety.org/cases/closed-cases/catholic-charities-v-state-of-illinois-et-al

 

[rossum]

argumentum ad absurdum

You question was absurd, and covered far too wide a range to be answered in the space allowed for a post here.

Josh and others have asked what is the purpose of marriage?

• The purpose of the marriage was for the king to marry his daughter to the son of the neighbouring king in order to seal the peace treaty between the two kingdoms.

• The purpose of the marriage was to allow the impoverished aristocratic family access to the money of the tradesman’s family, and to allow the tradesman’s family access to the prestige and titles associated with links to the aristocracy.

• The purpose of the marriage was to avoid the father of the bride’s shotgun.

You are asking an impossible question. There is no single purpose, “the purpose”. Every marriage involves different people (Taylor-Burton 2 perhaps excepted). Different people are different and have different purposes. There is no single “purpose” which covers all marriages.

animals in New Guinea are not relevant.

Gorillas do not live in New Guinea. The tribes of New Guinea are human beings, and have their own marriage customs.

As to Judge Shelby, he is just one man with an opinion.

With an opinion and authority. His opinion is being reviewed by the Appeals court and will probably be reviewed by the Supreme Court as well. By the end of the process, it will be more than one man’s decision and will have a higher level of authority.

rossum

 

[LisaA]

You question was absurd, and covered far too wide a range to be answered in the space allowed for a post here.

• The purpose of the marriage was for the king to marry his daughter to the son of the neighbouring king in order to seal the peace treaty between the two kingdoms.

• The purpose of the marriage was to allow the impoverished aristocratic family access to the money of the tradesman’s family, and to allow the tradesman’s family access to the prestige and titles associated with links to the aristocracy.

• The purpose of the marriage was to avoid the father of the bride’s shotgun.

You are asking an impossible question. There is no single purpose, “the purpose”. Every marriage involves different people (Taylor-Burton 2 perhaps excepted). Different people are different and have different purposes. There is no single “purpose” which covers all marriages.

Gorillas do not live in New Guinea. The tribes of New Guinea are human beings, and have their own marriage customs.

With an opinion and authority. His opinion is being reviewed by the Appeals court and will probably be reviewed by the Supreme Court as well. By the end of the process, it will be more than one man’s decision and will have a higher level of authority.

rossum

Again, since the thread is with respect to a Federal Judge in UTAH which is in the United States of America, the context of the questions of what is marriage is within this context. Marriage in the United States of America. That should go without saying although it’s been repeated several times but apparently you haven’t noticed.

If you just want to throw out Red Herrings to deflect from not being able to answer relevant questions, it’s clear you have no argument.

Lisa

 

[Monkey1976]

You are asking an impossible question. There is no single purpose, “the purpose”. Every marriage involves different people (Taylor-Burton 2 perhaps excepted). Different people are different and have different purposes. There is no single “purpose” which covers all marriages.

Point of order: There is no single purpose which covers same-sex “marriages” and the marriage of male and female. If one looks at the purpose of the civil marriage of male and female, it is clear: Establish legal paternity for any children born to the woman.

 

[gracepoole]

What is the logical basis behind such definition of civil marriage?

Is any union someone at any whim or fancy wishes to call a marriage a valid claim? and if not, why not?

Thank you for reading
Josh

The answer to your questions requires a basic understanding of anthropology. Why not read and investigate the sources used to craft the definition I provided before assuming that it’s so wide-ranging as to be useless?

 

[SuperLuigi]

Point of order: There is no single purpose which covers same-sex “marriages” and the marriage of male and female. If one looks at the purpose of the civil marriage of male and female, it is clear: Establish legal paternity for any children born to the woman.

 

[gracepoole]

Point of order: There is no single purpose which covers same-sex “marriages” and the marriage of male and female. If one looks at the purpose of the civil marriage of male and female, it is clear: Establish legal paternity for any children born to the woman.

Consider the definition I provided earlier: “Marriage (also called matrimony or wedlock) is a socially or ritually recognized union or legal contract between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between them, between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws.” Legal issues related to parenthood are one part of this definition but they do not comprise the entire definition.

 

[rossum]

Point of order: There is no single purpose which covers same-sex “marriages” and the marriage of male and female. If one looks at the purpose of the civil marriage of male and female, it is clear: Establish legal paternity for any children born to the woman.

And to gain citizenship for one partner. And to avoid taxation on death of a partner. And to make certain legal transactions easier. And …

Some of those purposes apply to both same sex and opposite sex marriages. The Windsor case was specifically about recognition of a legal (in Canada) same sex marriage for US tax purposes.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Again, since the thread is with respect to a Federal Judge in UTAH which is in the United States of America, the context of the questions of what is marriage is within this context.

In this context, marriage is a legal contract between two people under the laws of the state of Utah. Currently that includes marriage between two qualifying persons of same sex, and has done so since mid-December.

As I said, the purposes of such marriages are many and varied. Did you really need me to tell you that?

It seems to me that you are thinking about an idealised “marriage” which is rarely, if ever, seen in real life. Real life is much more messy than the ideal. For example, a couple may get married in order for the non-US partner to obtain US residency. That happens in real life, but not in an ideal world.

rossum

 

[LisaA]

In this context, marriage is a legal contract between two people under the laws of the state of Utah. Currently that includes marriage between two qualifying persons of same sex, and has done so since mid-December.

As I said, the purposes of such marriages are many and varied. Did you really need me to tell you that?

It seems to me that you are thinking about an idealised “marriage” which is rarely, if ever, seen in real life. Real life is much more messy than the ideal. For example, a couple may get married in order for the non-US partner to obtain US residency. That happens in real life, but not in an ideal world.

rossum

Baloney. In no way am I thinking of an idealized marriage but trying to drill down to the essential elements of what makes marriage unique from every other legal and/or religious relationship. Traditionally in America, marriage has been one man and one woman, for life or until dissolved through legal means. Recently some states through judicial fiat, executive order or less often through a vote of the people (poor things citizens seem not to count anymore!) “marriage” has been expanded to those who profess a sexual activity with like gender individuals. Thus marriage has lost its unique characteristic. This not only demeans the term since it’s now based on a sex practice or orientation, both of which are transitory, changeable and not inherent in the parties as is gender, it also allows other supposedly aggrieved parties to avail themselves of the federal benefits, use their “marriage” as a cudgel to demand retribution, and provide state support for an unhealthy, non-procreative by definition, activity.

So the state has elevated homosexual sex to something to be celebrated. I beg to differ and maintain that if marriage is to have any real meaning, it has to have unique characteristics that prevents its expansion into anything the parties so wish. We’ve already seen the detrimental impact of these “marriages” and I suspect it will only become worse as our society spirals down in the image of Ancient Rome.

Lisa