Gay Marriage Justified by Moral Relativism - How Do You Respond?

[Elizabeth502]

penis-vagina sex has never, ever been a prerequisite for a marriage license.

But having each of those organs, separately rolleyes has indeed historically been a prerequisite. The State is not interested in what every single couple does with those organs once married. It realizes that most normal heterosexual couples will be doing with them what nature intended. And that the people owning those organs will be creating households characterized by sexually complementary members, contributing to other sexually complementary households and a similarly balanced society… all of which is in the interest of a well-functioning State.

 

[JimG]

Your claim boils down to: SSM shouldn’t be legal because it’s bad for society. Well, bad how? You don’t specify. Moreover, I have no idea what you mean by “sexual complementarity.” Do you mean penis-vagina sex? If so, then you’re wrong: penis-vagina sex has never, ever been a prerequisite for a marriage license.

Sexual complementarity means that one person is male and the other is female. As such they have the potential of completing conjugal relations. That’s what marriage means. If they have no possibility whatever of consummating the marriage through conjugal relations, eitheir because of permanent and incurable impotence or because they are both the same sex, marriage is an impossibility.

That’s what has kept the species going for these several millenia. Reproductive organs do have an innate teleology, and from that comes marriage.

And no I didn’t specify in detail. Read the last two chapters of Zimmerman’s book for more detail as to how deconstructing family also deconstructs society. And no, it’s not just homosexual marriage. Marriage must be pretty far deconstructed before homosexual marriage is even a possibility.

I realize that everyone now wants to do their own thing and everyone else should just love it. I’m too old to worry about it. But our civilization is old too, and can’t take too many more shocks to its structure.

 

[spencelo]

But having each of those organs, separately rolleyes has indeed historically been a prerequisite.

Yes, but that prerequisite lacks any rational justification whatsoever.

The State is not interested in what every single couple does with those organs once married.

Which is precisely why the prerequisite (of being opposite-sex couples) makes no sense.

It realizes that most normal heterosexual couples will be doing with them what nature intended. And that the people owning those organs will be creating households characterized by sexually complementary members, contributing to other sexually complementary households and a similarly balanced society… all of which is in the interest of a well-functioning State.

None of this provides a reason why same-sex couples should be preventing from marrying.

 

[spencelo]

Sexual complementarity means that one person is male and the other is female. As such they have the potential of completing conjugal relations. That’s what marriage means. If they have no possibility whatever of consummating the marriage through conjugal relations, eitheir because of permanent and incurable impotence or because they are both the same sex, marriage is an impossibility.

That’s not true: severe paraplegics, those who are permanently sterile, and those who are permanently impotent can get married.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Yes, but that prerequisite lacks any rational justification whatsoever.

Yes, it’s “irrational” that the State wants a sexually complementary household for the raising of the next generation.

None of this provides a reason why same-sex couples should be preventing from marrying.

The purpose of the State even having an interest in marriage at all, is to ensure the development of the next generation. In that respect, it is irrational, illogical, and nonsensical to promote “equally” all forms of households, no matter how unbalanced, how random, how deviant from the norm which has proven the best model over time. The State legitimately exercises a preference as to which arrangements to promote formally. It does so based on the common good of all society, not the select wishes of a decided small minority, a minority who suffers no practical loss from being denied access to that preferred status. Any household which doesn’t fit into the prefered primary model is not prevented from the pursuit of happiness, from protections for each other which are available through other means and vehicles. What such a household or couple is not going to obtain by mere demand or hurt feelings is recognition of an “equality” which is a natural and logical impossibility.

 

[spencelo]

The purpose of the State even having an interest in marriage at all, is to ensure the development of the next generation.

Then: (a) it makes no sense that the State would permit permanently sterile opposite-sex couples to marry, and (b) it makes no sense that the State wouldn’t permit same-sex couples who have children to marry.

In that respect, it is irrational, illogical, and nonsensical to promote “equally” all forms of households, no matter how unbalanced, how random, how deviant from the norm which has proven the best model over time.

And yet, the State does precisely that when it allows virtually ALL opposite-sex couples to marry. And your insinuation that same-sex relationships are unbalanced and deviant is a typical homophobic slur thrown by people on your side.

Any household which doesn’t fit into the prefered primary model

And what is the preferred primary model? Is it the couple who produces and raise children? Reality check: the State allows opposite-sex couples to marry when they don’t fit that model. As I said before, it appears you want to impose non-existence requirements on same-sex couples (but not on opposite-sex couples), which is utterly arbitrary and irrational.

 

[JimG]

That’s not true: severe paraplegics, those who are permanently sterile, and those who are permanently impotent can get married.

Speaking of Catholic marriages, permanent incurable impotence existing before the marriage would be a bar to marriage. Sterility would not be a bar to marriage, since the conjugal act is still possible.

Even in some civil jurisdictions, I think that permanent impotence would be grounds for annulment.

 

[spencelo]

Speaking of Catholic marriages

We’re not talking about Catholic marriages. SSM advocates are NOT fighting for the right to get married in Catholic churches.

Even in some civil jurisdictions, I think that permanent impotence would be grounds for annulment.

It depends on the parties’ intentions and knowledge beforehand. Again, severe paraplegics and those who are permanently sterile can get married, which completely shoots down the “ability to procreate” NON-requirement.

 

[SgtSchultz]

How does one debate anything with a moral relativist? It’s like playing tennis with the net down or cards with someone who insists that your ace is only a “social construct”. I don’t believe it can be done, as relativism is inherently illogical.

 

[Patavium]

Tell me what does a Marriage allows that a Civil Partnership does not?

I will give you a HINT… in approved regions it is typically NO DIFFERENCE.

guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/17/gay-marriage-civil-partnerships

guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2012/mar/17/marriage-is-conservative-gay-equality?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487

The best comment I found in this news postings

As a gay man I find it incredible the amount of people who want to stick up for my right to get married. But hang on a minute guys can I just speak for myself? I don’t support “gay marriage” as I don’t think it is for me to redefine for everyone the meaning of marriage, which is traditionally between a man and woman, for the possibility of raising children. I can have a civil partnership which accords me the same rights, so whats the deal here? And no, I don’t feel “offended”, “second class” or “demeaned” in any way. I find the tone of some campaigners very Iintolerant, with an almost smug, self satisfied, done deal attitude towards opponents. This has not been debated properly. And I resent being used by Cameron to rebrand his party and the assumption that all gay people are somehow a monolithic block of the same opinions.

 

[SgtSchultz]

Tell me what does a Marriage allows that a Civil Partnership does not?

I will give you a HINT… in approved regions it is typically NO DIFFERENCE.

guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/17/gay-marriage-civil-partnerships

guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2012/mar/17/marriage-is-conservative-gay-equality?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487

The best comment I found in this news postings

Good post. There was actually a lengthy article published by some well respected professionals in some field or another (I can’t remember and I’m too lazy to look) saying why Gay marriage was not a good idea. It was co-authored by a self-identified gay person. It was on the Catholic Education website and was used at hearings on legalising gay “marriage” here in Canada. The authors were quite secular and think that being gay and living with a same-sex partner were aok. So there street cred is in order.

 

[JimG]

We’re not talking about Catholic marriages. SSM advocates are NOT fighting for the right to get married in Catholic churches.

It depends on the parties’ intentions and knowledge beforehand. Again, severe paraplegics and those who are permanently sterile can get married, which completely shoots down the “ability to procreate” NON-requirement.

I wasn’t speaking of ability to procreate. I was speaking of the ability to have marital sex. Inability to engage in marital sex makes marriage rather pointless. It might be a union, or a partnership, but not a marriage.

 

[spencelo]

I wasn’t speaking of ability to procreate. I was speaking of the ability to have marital sex. Inability to engage in marital sex makes marriage rather pointless. It might be a union, or a partnership, but not a marriage.

Well, the inability to have penis-vagina sex (“martial sex”) isn’t a prerequisite for civil marriage either, so it’s strange you would impose this NON-requirement on opposite-sex couples.

 

[Patavium]

Well, the inability to have penis-vagina sex (“martial sex”) isn’t a prerequisite for civil marriage either, so it’s strange you would impose this NON-requirement on opposite-sex couples.

They have all the rights of marriage in Civil partnership. Why REDEFINE marriage?

 

[robertericleech]

They have all the rights of marriage in Civil partnership. Why REDEFINE marriage?

I used to think that, but a lawyer friend pointed out to me that while there are hundreds of years of case law involving ‘marriage,’ there is not a similar supply of legal precedent involving ‘civil union,’ so same-sex couples, even in states that recognize their civil unions, don’t have the same rights as heterosexual couples when it comes to things like health benefits or making medical decisions for their partner. They have no rights at all if they travel to a state that doesn’t recognize civil unions.

 

[SgtSchultz]

I used to think that, but a lawyer friend pointed out to me that while there are hundreds of years of case law involving ‘marriage,’ there is not a similar supply of legal precedent involving ‘civil union,’ so same-sex couples, even in states that recognize their civil unions, don’t have the same rights as heterosexual couples when it comes to things like health benefits or making medical decisions for their partner.

A state that decides to allow same sex couples to legally marry wouldn’t be redefining marriage, it would just be allowing same sex couples and their attorneys the right to benefit from an already well-defined area of family law.

You can already do that though through living wills and the like. For other kinds of benefits, you simply legislate. No need to redefine marriage to give equal benefits.

 

[Elizabeth502]

They have all the rights of marriage in Civil partnership. Why REDEFINE marriage?

Because they want much more than what a combination of civil unions and unlimited available contracts can provide: They want to force society to accept the homosexual lifestyle as morally equivalent with the heterosexual lifestyle. And they have admitted that on more than one occasion. They want formal recognition of interchangeability.

It’s not about rights. It’s about moral status and moral equivalencies. That’s the hypocrisy of it all.

 

[Patavium]

I used to think that, but a lawyer friend pointed out to me that while there are hundreds of years of case law involving ‘marriage,’ there is not a similar supply of legal precedent involving ‘civil union,’ so same-sex couples, even in states that recognize their civil unions, don’t have the same rights as heterosexual couples when it comes to things like health benefits or making medical decisions for their partner. They have no rights at all if they travel to a state that doesn’t recognize civil unions.

This is inaccurate. It depends WHERE are we talking about. In several regions, the civil partnerships DO have the same rights as married couples.

 

[Patavium]

Because they want much more than what a combination of civil unions and unlimited available contracts can provide: They want to force society to accept the homosexual lifestyle as morally equivalent with the heterosexual lifestyle. And they have admitted that on more than one occasion. They want formal recognition of interchangeability.

It’s not about rights. It’s about moral status and moral equivalencies. That’s the hypocrisy of it all.

I couldn’t have said it better myself

 

[robertericleech]

This is inaccurate. It depends WHERE are we talking about. In several regions, the civil partnerships DO have the same rights as married couples.

Right…the problem is exactly one of location. What if your home state gives you the same rights as a married couple, but you’re traveling in a state that doesn’t and you have an accident, and the doctor needs consent do do a medical procedure, and can’t get it, because the state you’re in doesn’t recognize civil unions? Then you’re screwed.