Ah! I see, you’re an “all or nothing” sort of person. Its a matter of being realistic or pragmatic. If we have laws that discriminate against 37 different classes of people, I am willing to accept changing the laws so that they only discriminate against 34 classes of people, if either a) only people in those three classes are complaining, or b) that’s all I can get.Ok, I’m going to try and put this another way.
I can understand and respect the following opinions
or even
- The govt should not in any way be involved in “marriage”
- The govt should allow any people who wish to share their lives together to form a legal contract through which property issues can be settled.
- The govt should allow any people who wish to share their lives together to form a legal contract through which property issues can be settled and which will grant them certain privileges by virtue of the fact that people who share their lives together should no longer be considered as entirely seperate individuals, (joint filing etc)
- The govt should have a legal contract for those who can procreate so which encourages them not only to procreate but also to remain with each other to ensure that their children will be raised in a loving and stable environment, thus producing good, healthy, and productive citizens.
or any combination of the above ( there should be a contract for shared living and another contract for producing and raising children, etc)
- The govt should allow only those people who are romantically involved with each other to enter into a legal contract to share their lives with each other and recieve benefits of shared living.
(I remain convinced that the vast majority of americans would be extremely opposed to the necessary implication, that the govt has any right or authority to make laws that are specifically based on the romantic aspect of someones relationship, but I could still understand such an opinion as it is consistent)
What I cannot understand is people who hold the following opinion
I think that the current approach to this govt instituted contract is discriminatory, therefore I am going to introduce/fight for/promote etc another version of this contract which still happens to be discriminatory.
But in response to those,There are essentially two answers to that. First, there literally aren’t enough hours in the day to make everything perfect. I prioritize my efforts towards the things that are the biggest problem at the moment. Think of it as “triage” At this moment, homosexual marriage seems to me to be a bigger issue that consanguinity marriage. However, once we fix homosexual marriage, perhaps that will change.
The second thing is that we have a democratically based form of government (not a true democracy, but democratically based) therefore as the mores and opinions of the electorate changes, the laws follow. For example, not too long ago, many states had laws that were manifestly unjust such as racial discrimination laws (Jim Crow), gender discrimination laws (women weren’t permitted to vote or hold property) and there were no child welfare or labor laws. But because we lived under a democratically based government, these laws couldn’t effectively change until a certain “critical mass” of society changed. I believe we’ve reached that point with marriage laws.
haha, thanks, yes I do understand that, I guess I did phrase my last post poorly.I think you misunderstand how judicial review works and the case before court now. Generally speaking, Judicial review deals only with specific lawsuits filed seeking relief from specific statues. There is no wholesale “I’m suing because EVERYONE should be permitted to marry whoever they want” there is only “I” (and others exactly the same as me) am being damaged by this specific law.
In this case, it is a lawsuit (Windsor v US) brought against the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) by Edith Windsor, a lesbian woman who is being required to pay $363,000 in estate taxes after the death of Thea Spyer, her “spouse”, whom she had legally married in Toronto. The state of NY legally recognizes same sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions, but because DOMA prohibits Federal agencies from recognizing same sex marriages that are otherwise legal, Windsor was not allowed the “spousal exemption” accorded other married couples when calculating her liability under the Estate Tax. If Windsor had married a male in Toronto, she wouldn’t have had to pay the tax. She is seeking relief.
Because the DOMA refers ONLY to same sex couple, the court will not address OTHER impediments to marriage, in fact, even if it did say that consanguineous couples should be permitted to marry, it would be considered ober dicta (said in passing) and wouldn’t have the force of law because that issue is not before the court. It could well be that someday marrying close relatives will be a civil rights issue. If it becomes one, I’ll listen to both sides and decide, probably in favor of the close relatives.
I think we all discriminate. When people say “we should not discriminate” I think that’s often short-hand for “we should not unjustly discriminate”. Of course we all believe the latter; the question up for debate seems to be what is just and unjust discrimination. Those supporting same-sex marriage obviously think that prevention of it is unjust.What I cannot understand is people who hold the following opinion
I think that the current approach to this govt instituted contract is discriminatory, therefore I am going to introduce/fight for/promote etc another version of this contract which still happens to be discriminatory.
Perhaps… I think there’s more to it than that though. So many people will automatically call you a bigot if you show any signs that you might think that extending legal marriage to homosexuals is not a good idea. Doesn’t matter what your reasons are, or your motivation for doing so etc, they get super emotional and passionate about this “discrimination” but then don’t even care about the **very same “discrimination” **that goes on against siblings etc. If there really is discrimination in either case, it is the same in both cases. Yet so many people have such a disparity in their reaction to these two cases. It makes one think they don’t really care about discrimination at all really, but are just doing whatever their culture tells them to and becoming passionate about whatever the public tells them to rather than actually caring about discrimination. If they did actually care about discrimination then they would not have such disparate reactions to the idea homosexuals and siblings being allowed to marry.Ah! I see, you’re an “all or nothing” sort of person. Its a matter of being realistic or pragmatic. If we have laws that discriminate against 37 different classes of people, I am willing to accept changing the laws so that they only discriminate against 34 classes of people, if either a) only people in those three classes are complaining, or b) that’s all I can get.
Ah, well that’s a whole 'nother question. I can only tell you that my own interest is usually the result of an issue impacting me on a personal basis. In the case of close relative marriage, I don’t want to marry my sister, I don’t know anyone who wants to marry his sibling, so I’ve got more pressing issues to worry about.I am not really reffering to this court case in particular, but rather to people’'s opinions about this. Generally speaking they care only about allowing homosexuals to marry, they couldn’t care less about allowing siblings to marry, some even are horrified and disgusted at the thought of siblings being allowed to marry. The thing is though, if it is discrimination to prevent homosexuals from marrying then it is discrimination to prevent siblings from marrying. Why do so many people care so deeply about the one, but couldn’t care less about the other even when they are made aware that the same “discrimination” they are fighting against with respect to homosexuals exists with respect to siblings, or in fact still end up being opposed to the idea of allowing siblings to marry. It just doesn’t make any sense to me.
well, obviously they think it is unjust, but the problem is that all the reasons they give for it being unjust seem to be either based on giving govt authority to legislate about romantic relationships (which most would be opposed to) or else can extend to siblings just as much as to homosexuals. At least I have yet to hear a reason that explains why homosexuals are different than siblings in this regard. And yet, despite this, no one seems interested in the fact that if they think homosexuals are being unjustly discriminated against, it logically follows that siblings are also being unjustly discriminated against. Its almost as though their support of homosexual marriage comes not from reasoning, but emotional programming.I think we all discriminate. When people say “we should not discriminate” I think that’s often short-hand for “we should not unjustly discriminate”. Of course we all believe the latter; the question up for debate seems to be what is just and unjust discrimination. Those supporting same-sex marriage obviously think that prevention of it is unjust.
Again I really don’t understand why you are bringing this up. What I am asking has nothing to do with feeling “threatened” by homosexuals having civil marriage or what the Church does or does not teach.Personally I don’t feel at all threatened by same-sex couples having a civil marriage. I think the number of “annulments” granted is far more damaging to the credibility of the Catholic view of marriage as a life-long union (there is now the expectation that an annulment will be granted). To all intents and purposes the Catholic Church now approves of divorce and remarriage. I think we need to focus on marriage within the Church and find out how we can get people to re-affirm belief in the vow of “till death do us part”.
In point of fact both the Pharonic Egyptian, pre-Columbian Peruvian and pre-European discovery Hawaiian cultures practiced sibling marriage/procreation, at least for the rulers.Are people asking for sibling marriage? That seems a diversion to me, and one that would carry high risks to any child. I imagine most, if not all, cultures would rule it out on those terms.
With today’s modern eugenics, incest would be fine.Are people asking for sibling marriage? That seems a diversion to me, and one that would carry high risks to any child. I imagine most, if not all, cultures would rule it out on those terms. The question of polygamy seems much closer related - it is accepted in some cultures (including old Israel) and it doesn’t carry specific genetic risks of inbreeding (interestingly you can marry a first cousin in UK law, a closer link than allowed in Canon law).
Still not following your “romance” argument. Do you find most people understand and agree with it?
InertiaWhat IS the reason for opposing it beyond a certain age, in fact?
Thanks for that - that’s interesting!In point of fact both the Pharonic Egyptian, pre-Columbian Peruvian and pre-European discovery Hawaiian cultures practiced sibling marriage/procreation, at least for the rulers.
jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3812218?uid=3739616&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21101829379943
Are many people really asking for it - sibling marriage after the age of fertility?What IS the reason for opposing it beyond a certain age, in fact?
Personally, I think if they are going to allow same sex marriage, then why not extend it to kinship… such as sister to sister or brother to brother so they have “rights” too!In other words, how can a person who supports same-sex marriage be OK with prohibiting two brothers from marrying each other?
There is no such legal contract in my state, so i can’t be a supporter of it. And I’m not against it, either.This would include, platonic as well as romantic relationships.
The reason I see it this way is because if the govt is involved by having a legal contract, then it is clearly being admitted that the govt has a right to be involved.
Now, there are three possible aspects of a relationship which could be the point oflegal marriage and so what we are admitting the govt has a right to be involved in.
So, depending on your view of what kind (if any) of legal marriage the state should be involved in you will implicitly be stating that the govt has a right to be involved in one of the above three things.
- Ensuring healthy and well–adjusted future citizens
- Handling the merging and seperating of property of those who merge their lives toggether
- Making decisions as to who is and is not permitted to be involved in a romantic relationship.
Personally, I don’t have a problem with the govt being involved in either of the first two, but I have a huge problem with the govt being involved in the third.
…
It doesn’t matter whether or not they intend to say this, it is implicit in what they are supporting. If someone supports extending the legal contract of marriage to homosexual couples and only to homosexual couples as oppoosed to any two adults (such as siblings, parent and child, etc) then they are automatically telling the govt that is has the authority to make decisions as to who can and cannot be involved in a romantic relationship with each other. This is a principle which to me seems to be abhorrent to the general populace of America, so why in the world do those who support extending the legal contract of marriage to include romantically involved homosexual couples not extend their cause to** all **adults, instead of arguing for something which rests on a premise which they themselves find abhorrent?
I agree, it makes no sense.Please understand that this is an honest and legitimate question. Also, I am not looking for those who are against instituting a legal contract of hoosexual marriage to come in here and make generalizations as to what they think is the reason. I am looking for people who actually support such a legal contract.
Honestly, I don’t get it. To me it seems that they ought to be seeking not just permssion for homosexuals, but for any two people who wish to live together and comit their lives to each other. This would include, platonic as well as romantic relationships.
The reason I see it this way is because if the govt is involved by having a legal contract, then it is clearly being admitted that the govt has a right to be involved.
Now, there are three possible aspects of a relationship which could be the point oflegal marriage and so what we are admitting the govt has a right to be involved in.
So, depending on your view of what kind (if any) of legal marriage the state should be involved in you will implicitly be stating that the govt has a right to be involved in one of the above three things.
- Ensuring healthy and well–adjusted future citizens
- Handling the merging and seperating of property of those who merge their lives toggether
- Making decisions as to who is and is not permitted to be involved in a romantic relationship.
Personally, I don’t have a problem with the govt being involved in either of the first two, but I have a huge problem with the govt being involved in the third.
Now, here’s the thing. If the point is #1, then it makes sense to exclude those who cannot have children. If the point is #2, then it would be unjust to exclude any two people who wish to share their lives with each other, whether they are in a romantic relationship or not. Extending the legal contract of marriage to homosexual romantic couples, however, would mean that the legal contract of marriage would no longer fit either #1 or #2. In other words, if someone wishes to extend the definition to include only romantically involved homosexuals then they are implicitly stating that the govt has a right to make decisions as to who may and may not be romantically involved with each other
It doesn’t matter whether or not they intend to say this, it is implicit in what they are supporting. If someone supports extending the legal contract of marriage to homosexual couples and only to homosexual couples as oppoosed to any two adults (such as siblings, parent and child, etc) then they are automatically telling the govt that is has the authority to make decisions as to who can and cannot be involved in a romantic relationship with each other. This is a principle which to me seems to be abhorrent to the general populace of America, so why in the world do those who support extending the legal contract of marriage to include romantically involved homosexual couples not extend their cause to** all **adults, instead of arguing for something which rests on a premise which they themselves find abhorrent?
There’s a gray area when you stray from God’s black and white teachings sure - therein lies your problem. I don’t have any gray areas in moral teachings that people who disregard God’s edicts do.Are many people really asking for it - sibling marriage after the age of fertility?
If they are (which I’m not aware of) then to be consistent I would say it is not the Church’s role to prevent it in cultures that accept it, but it is the Church’s role to hold up an alternative Christian example of marriage.
I suppose the distinction for me is the line between saying what we believe God’s wish for us is, and the organisation of large-scale political campaigns aimed at legislating non-Christians (where the freedom of others is not being impinged). That’s always going to be a bit of a grey line, but I do believe it is being crossed at the moment.
That’s because in a marriage, actual, medical sterility means that something is broken. Also, beyond the actual absence of the gonads, there is no 100% certain test for sterility. I personally know two married couples who were told by doctors that they were sterile. I’m godfather to the son of one couple, and the other couple is currently expecting their second child.I agree, it makes no sense.
In fact, it makes just as much sense as same-sex marriage opponents claiming marriage is about having children, but not wanting to ban sterile couples from marrying.
As a couple they are infertile. Both can be individually fertile. Non heterosexual couples can raise a child if they can obtain one. The law with regard to taxes was stated … does that include giving a baby if the law demands it??That’s because in a marriage, actual, medical sterility means that something is broken. Also, beyond the actual absence of the gonads, there is no 100% certain test for sterility. I personally know two married couples who were told by doctors that they were sterile. I’m godfather to the son of one couple, and the other couple is currently expecting their second child.
As a general rule, heterosexual couples are fertile. Actual and total sterility is an extremely rare occurrence that requires very invasive testing to diagnose. Therefore, we give the benefit of the doubt to any heterosexual couple that presents themselves for marriage.
As an absolute, incontrovertible, biological truth, homosexual couples are infertile. There is no “doubt” to be had.
This is the essence of the problem. Marriage isn’t about gaining the “right” to “obtain” children. It’s about taking responsibility for the children you create by your own actions. Children are the ones with rights - the right to be raised in a stable and loving home by their own biological parents. There are always exceptions, but the government should encourage the rule and make suitable provision for the exception. Making any other situation equal to what should be the rule does violence against children.Non heterosexual couples can raise a child if they can obtain one.
As an adult now, and as a former child adoptee to two of the most protective parents and families you will find anywhere in this world I can state that the danger to the adopted child does not come from adopted families anymore than families of biological origin. I firmly believe and know that the sole criteria for providing for the safety of children unwanted by their birth parents must be the safety of the child throughout its entire life, into adulthood. The worst offense to the child, the worst violence, is for him to be left defenseless and alone in a world whose “pluralistic peace”, his putative protector, is nothing other than a rhetorical hoax perpetrated by those who work for the breakdown of law and order, and who yearn for the violence of the end times. You decide who the enemy is. You decide who is violent against children. I’d love to hear a rational theory.This is the essence of the problem. Marriage isn’t about gaining the “right” to “obtain” children. It’s about taking responsibility for the children you create by your own actions. Children are the ones with rights - the right to be raised in a stable and loving home by their own biological parents. There are always exceptions, but the government should encourage the rule and make suitable provision for the exception. Making any other situation equal to what should be the rule does violence against children.