Gay marriage is a civil right

[Magnanimity]

…so we are continually told today by some. Or, more often, it’s just taken for granted though no one’s arguing for it. In the recent threads on gay marriage within this sub-forum, it is often asserted, but I’ve yet to hear the argument, that gay marriage is a civil right. It seems clear to me that the Supreme Court of the US has (rightly, I think) upheld that marriage itself is a civil right. But, whether we can apply that right to this or that particular “expansion” of marriage (eg, gay, polygamous, etc) is an altogether separate issue.

Given that there is such an overwhelming lack of historical support for attempts to redefine marriage (and hence, the family) to include homosexual unions, even among States which were much more friendly to homosexuality than ours (eg, the Greeks), the general public needs to know what has changed in the course of human history. Why today is gay marriage considered a civil right when it never has been considered such previously?

So, let’s have it now. We’ve got a thread entirely devoted to the most crucial aspect of the overall arguments put forward by advocates of gay marriage. After all, if proponents of gay marriage cannot convince the American public that this novel way of looking at marriage actually is a civil right, they will likely never win the argument here in the US.

Rousseau said, “The most basic of all human institutions, and the only one that is natural, is the family.” (The Social Contract)

 

[markomalley]

One would certainly hope that all marriages would be happy (gay).

On the other hand, there is no such thing as a marriage between two or more people of the same sex. Regardless of what the government says or doesn’t say.

Homosexuals have the same rights to marriage as heterosexuals. They, too, may marry a member of the opposite sex.

 

[Magnanimity]

On the other hand, there is no such thing as a marriage between two or more people of the same sex. Regardless of what the government says or doesn’t say.

Mark,

The government is currently in the business of recognizing and, in a sense, sanctioning marital unions. It seems to me that this is a legitimate function of gov’t, since the State has an interest in promoting and protecting its most basic unit-the family. Wouldn’t you agree?

It seems though that I might argue from the opposite angle of things from what you suggest. I say, let whatever religious or civic group (who wishes to do this) start sanctioning same-sex unions and even pronounce them “married.” Isn’t that harmless enough?

But, it seems quite different to me to get the State to recognize these unions. There is a certain moral influence that the State can have through the writing (or high court interpretation) of its laws, a certain legislation of morality, if you will. And this isn’t a bad thing, necessarily. I think it’s an inevitable thing. That is, a moral sense can be passed on to the people, in a general way, when once a practice is declared moral, whether this declaration is explicit or tacit.

There is a legitimizing of said practice when this happens, and I think this is what proponents of gay marriage are looking for–moral legitimacy, to be affirmed by the Gov’t, which in turn will lead to affirmation by the people. Otherwise, what is the point of getting the State involved in gay marriage?

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

…so we are continually told today by some. Or, more often, it’s just taken for granted though no one’s arguing for it. In the recent threads on gay marriage within this sub-forum, it is often asserted, but I’ve yet to hear the argument, that gay marriage is a civil right. It seems clear to me that the Supreme Court of the US has (rightly, I think) upheld that marriage itself is a civil right. But, whether we can apply that right to this or that particular “expansion” of marriage (eg, gay, polygamous, etc) is an altogether separate issue.

Given that there is such an overwhelming lack of historical support for attempts to redefine marriage (and hence, the family) to include homosexual unions, even among States which were much more friendly to homosexuality than ours (eg, the Greeks), the general public needs to know what has changed in the course of human history. Why today is gay marriage considered a civil right when it never has been considered such previously?

So, let’s have it now. We’ve got a thread entirely devoted to the most crucial aspect of the overall arguments put forward by advocates of gay marriage. After all, if proponents of gay marriage cannot convince the American public that this novel way of looking at marriage actually is a civil right, they will likely never win the argument here in the US.

Rousseau said, “The most basic of all human institutions, and the only one that is natural, is the family.” (The Social Contract)

You will never convince me. You will never convince Holy Mother Church.

If so, the true anti-Christ will have appeared—and we will be in the end times.

 

[surritter]

The real question is: Why is the government in the business of recognizing marriages in the first place?

If we get to the heart of that answer, it will lead you to see why same-sex marriage is an impossibility.

 

[Dale_M]

It seems clear to me that the Supreme Court of the US has (rightly, I think) upheld that marriage itself is a civil right. …Why today is gay marriage considered a civil right when it never has been considered such previously?

In the United States, if marriage is a civil right then equal protection under the law (as guaranteed by the Constitution) would hold that homosexual couples should have that right as well as heterosexual couples.

 

[Will_B]

If we mess with God’s plan we end up in a mess…

In the late 1930s we messed with contraception, all but the Roman Catholic Church and a few other more Orthodox Churches allow contraception… Contraception has lead to open sex… Some of you may remember the movie “Bob and Carol, Ted and Alice”… Contraception lead to couples openly living together prior to marriage or in place of marriage. And if contraception doesn’t work we have legalized abortion… All in the name of “You can’t tell me what I can do in my bedroom”

Now the homosexual community has picked up on this theme…

Who suffers?? The family. Especially the children…

Why do today’s children have no respect for life? (school shootings, etc)

What next?? Legalised incest?? Unless the Church stands strong all types of sexual perversions can and will become legal.

 

[surritter]

In the United States, if marriage is a civil right then equal protection under the law (as guaranteed by the Constitution) would hold that homosexual couples should have that right as well as heterosexual couples.

That is true, but we still have to get to the definition of marriage and why it needs to be certified by a government: If marriage were simply a legal arrangement (for inheritance purposes, etc.) then homosexual marriage would be possible.

But centuries ago, governments got into the business of recognizing marriages because the natural fruit of a marriage is children, and the government wanted to protect those children. (This was when society realized that there is a connection between sexual acts and procreation – duh!)

The reason gay marriage is not possible is because marriage is intimately tied to sex, which of course is related to procreation. But our culture is blind to this connection (witness the attitude toward contraception) and therefore our culture can’t fathom the idea that marriage is only for a man and a woman.

 

[rossum]

Homosexuals have the same rights to marriage as heterosexuals. They, too, may marry a member of the opposite sex.

Do not rely on that argument, the USSC rejected in in the case of Loving v Virginia, though in that instance it went: “Blacks have the same right to marry as whites. They too may marry a member of the same race.”

rossum

 

[Magnanimity]

In the United States, if marriage is a civil right then equal protection under the law (as guaranteed by the Constitution) would hold that homosexual couples should have that right as well as heterosexual couples.

Dale,

The government isn’t merely ‘protecting’ in the instance of sanctioning marital unions. It is playing a proactive role and one which, as I’ve reasoned, is legitimately in its interest to promote and protect its most basic institution-the family. It seems to me there is an important distinction to be made here between (1) legitimizing those unions which can and do promote and protect the institution of the family (‘traditional’ marriage) and (2) sanctioning some fringe unions (eg, homosexual, polygamist, adult-child, incestual, bestial, etc) all of which much less obviously promote and protect the family. (Although, one does have to admit that polygamy can make a case for itself as legitimate, and it has historical instances for support.)

The distinction here is between the legal/moral principle (the civil right of marriage) and its praxis, or, the specific instances which fall under the general principle. It would be fallacious, both legally and logically, to believe that having a general right solves all questions as to its particular application.

 

[tjm190]

In the United States, if marriage is a civil right then equal protection under the law (as guaranteed by the Constitution) would hold that homosexual couples should have that right as well as heterosexual couples.

(1) Two (2) consenting (3) unmarried (4) human (5) adults (6) of the opposite gender (7) who are not close relatives.

The U.S. government denies marriages to groups of more than two people, groups where one person does not or can not consent, groups in which one member is married to a third party, groups where one member is not human, groups where one member is not of age, groups where the two members are of the same gender, and groups when the two members are at an arbitrary level genetic similarity.

Why must we do away with condition (5) because it precludes some marriages, yet allow ourselves to keep the others?

 

[Rence]

Given that there is such an overwhelming lack of historical support for attempts to redefine marriage (and hence, the family) to include homosexual unions, even among States which were much more friendly to homosexuality than ours (eg, the Greeks), the general public needs to know what has changed in the course of human history. Why today is gay marriage considered a civil right when it never has been considered such previously?
(The Social Contract)

From what I understand, I believe they want to be entitled to the same rights that other married couples have. Instead of having to marry a person of the opposite sex to get insurance, and other things, they want to be able to marry their significant other. The reason why their pushing harder as time goes by is because our society is changing and it’s important for them to be able have some kind of rights that only go to a spouse: insurance, visiting in the hospital when “only family” is stipulated, etc. They want more control over their lives and more control over how much of their parter’s life they can share.

Civil marriage is different than religious marriage because civil marriage entitles one to civil perks: for example, if a spouse dies, the remaining spouse can still collect their spous’e social security check. That can be significant when one needs money to live. However, a religious marriage is a religious/spirtual bond, and in the case of a Catholic marriage, it is a Holy Sacrament. The two are different.

Some people get married civilly and don’t bother taking it further on a religious level. And it’s still a valid marriage. So what they’re looking for is a change in civil law that reflects a change in the times.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Dale, marriage is not a civil right in this country. The Court declared in its *Loving vs. VA *decision that marriage was a civil right in that context, which was a heterosexual interracial couple, not a homosexual couple. No broader statement was made by the Court that marriage between any two adults of any categories was protectable.

Rence, your perspective is correct. Here’s the problem, though. (And this has been discussed a lot over the last 2 years on CAF):

(1) Privileges are assigned to promote or protect a particular insitution or category, in contradistinction to others. If the definition of civil marriage becomes broadened, there’s no reason it shouldn’t be broadened to include brother/sister, friend/friend so that “everybody” can get benefits, and at that point the definition of privileges ceases to have any meaning.

(2) Marriage has particular societal purposes beyond just being a private arrangement between 2 random people. It also does not have primarily as its societal purpose an economic benefit. The economic privileges serve to uphold the institution, not the other way around. It is very different, say, from the principle of joint tenancy in home ownership, where it doesn’t matter who joins with whom. That is strictly a business arrangment and does not have particular societal impact.

 

[Biggie]

(1) Two (2) consenting (3) unmarried (4) human (5) adults (6) of the opposite gender (7) who are not close relatives.

The U.S. government denies marriages to groups of more than two people, groups where one person does not or can not consent, groups in which one member is married to a third party, groups where one member is not human, groups where one member is not of age, groups where the two members are of the same gender, and groups when the two members are at an arbitrary level genetic similarity.

Why must we do away with condition (5) because it precludes some marriages, yet allow ourselves to keep the others?

Waiting …for a response as well.

 

[Biggie]

…so we are continually told today by some. Or, more often, it’s just taken for granted though no one’s arguing for it. In the recent threads on gay marriage within this sub-forum, it is often asserted, but I’ve yet to hear the argument, that gay marriage is a civil right. It seems clear to me that the Supreme Court of the US has (rightly, I think) upheld that marriage itself is a civil right. But, whether we can apply that right to this or that particular “expansion” of marriage (eg, gay, polygamous, etc) is an altogether separate issue.

Given that there is such an overwhelming lack of historical support for attempts to redefine marriage (and hence, the family) to include homosexual unions, even among States which were much more friendly to homosexuality than ours (eg, the Greeks), the general public needs to know what has changed in the course of human history. Why today is gay marriage considered a civil right when it never has been considered such previously?

So, let’s have it now. We’ve got a thread entirely devoted to the most crucial aspect of the overall arguments put forward by advocates of gay marriage. After all, if proponents of gay marriage cannot convince the American public that this novel way of looking at marriage actually is a civil right, they will likely never win the argument here in the US.

Rousseau said, “The most basic of all human institutions, and the only one that is natural, is the family.” (The Social Contract)

It is now time to ask if you recognize a difference between a civil contract and a marriage?

 

[rossum]

Waiting …for a response as well.

That list used to read: (1) Two (2) consenting (3) unmarried (4) human (5) adults (6) of the opposite gender (7) who are not close relatives (8) of the same race.

Why must we do away with condition (8) because it precludes some marriages, yet allow ourselves to keep the others?

Given that the USSC did away with condition 8 it is possible for them to do away with condition 6. There countries where condition 1 is different, a man may marry up to four women.

The list, as a piece of civil law, is not unchangeable.

rossum

 

[edwest2]

It’s not a civil rights issue:

frc.org/get.cfm?i=PD05B01

Second, homosexuals are misusing black civil rights terminology by claiming civil unions amount to ‘separate but equal.’ All they want is 100% equivalency with straight marriage.

When John McCain appeared on Ellen Degeneres’ show, he spoke of contracts. She insisted on marriage.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Biggie]

That list used to read: (1) Two (2) consenting (3) unmarried (4) human (5) adults (6) of the opposite gender (7) who are not close relatives (8) of the same race.

Why must we do away with condition (8) because it precludes some marriages, yet allow ourselves to keep the others?

Given that the USSC did away with condition 8 it is possible for them to do away with condition 6. There countries where condition 1 is different, a man may marry up to four women.

The list, as a piece of civil law, is not unchangeable.

rossum

The recognition that #8 had nothing to do whatever with the natural order. Could consent, for example, similarly be found to be irrelevant?

 

[tjm190]

That list used to read: (1) Two (2) consenting (3) unmarried (4) human (5) adults (6) of the opposite gender (7) who are not close relatives (8) of the same race.

Why must we do away with condition (8) because it precludes some marriages, yet allow ourselves to keep the others?

Given that the USSC did away with condition 8 it is possible for them to do away with condition 6. There countries where condition 1 is different, a man may marry up to four women.

The list, as a piece of civil law, is not unchangeable.

rossum

I’m not saying they are unchangeable- however, the claim is that (6) is discriminatory while the others are fine. Yes, same sex couples are excluded by (6). Every number excludes some groups.

The question is why are people bigots for wanting to keep 6, while just about everyone wants to keep 1-5 and 7.

 

[rossum]

I’m not saying they are unchangeable- however, the claim is that (6) is discriminatory while the others are fine. Yes, same sex couples are excluded by (6). Every number excludes some groups.

The question is why are people bigots for wanting to keep 6, while just about everyone wants to keep 1-5 and 7.

People who wanted to keep (8) were rightly described as bigots. Many people disagree with (1), Moslems and some Mormons for example.

This is a matter of civil law and hence for the government to decide. Any country that allows divorce has already diverged from the Catholic version of marriage.

rossum