How do i come up with a good reason why governments shouldn't allow same sex marriage?

[MacQ]

The relevance to the topic is that on one hand you vigorously denounce government limiting civil unions based on the sex of the partners, but on the other hand you are only so-so about government limiting civil unions based on being too closely related.

What if a mother and a son want to be in a civil union?

What about a mother and a daughter wanting to be in a civil union?

It seems odd to deny the mother-and-son combo and allow the mother-and-daughter combo.

So-so has nothing to do with it. It’s not a matter of “feelings”, which I didn’t opine on. I simply pointed out the fact that limitations on marryin’ cousins was motivated by public health concerns, as was the limitation of issuing a license to someone with syphilis.

Recalling that we are only talking about state and legal issues, a parent-child civil union would actually undercut a legal status that already exists. Wouldn’t be in the self interest of either. They are already accorded rights that accrue to next of kin.

 

[MacQ]

So if a new religion started up, and decided not to officiate gay marriages, they wouldn’t be exempt from such laws? Any way you slice it, the Scalia opinion was a bad one, in my book. It gives the government a reason to inhibit the practice of religion that has nothing to do with interpersonal harm.

Really, if you can’t see the difference between a frivolous group declaring that smoking pot is part of their religion, and a church adopting age-old practices that are normally found in established religions, I doubt I can say anything that would make sense to you.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Really, if you can’t see the difference between a frivolous group declaring that smoking pot is part of their religion, and a church adopting age-old practices that are normally found in established religions, I doubt I can say anything that would make sense to you.

The Supreme Court is not allowed to declare any religious group frivolous, and that was not the ground of their 1990 ruling. That ruling applies to all religious groups, no matter how sincere or silly.

Think about it this way. If Presbyterians, tomorrow, decided not to allow racial intermarriages, don’t you think there would be an outcry? Don’t you think people would insist that the state had the right to legally force the Presbyterians to marry black and white people? Well, Employment Division v. Smith (1990) gives the state the right to enforce a law that forces churches to offer interracial weddings. And likewise, it gives the state the right to enforce a law that makes churches offer gay weddings.

Don’t kid yourself. It does.

 

[MacQ]

The Supreme Court is not allowed to declare any religious group frivolous, and that was not the ground of their 1990 ruling. That ruling applies to all religious groups, no matter how sincere or silly.

Think about it this way. If Presbyterians, tomorrow, decided not to allow racial intermarriages, don’t you think there would be an outcry? Don’t you think people would insist that the state had the right to legally force the Presbyterians to marry black and white people? Well, Employment Division v. Smith (1990) gives the state the right to enforce a law that forces churches to offer interracial weddings. And likewise, it gives the state the right to enforce a law that makes churches offer gay weddings.

Don’t kid yourself. It does.

I take your points as valid.
Along with your concern that it will definitely be challenged.
I have added the caveat to my proposed stance on civil unions that Churches should not be forced to confer marriages by the state.
The fact that a court ruling seems to have (badly) set a precedent otherwise is not a valid reason to deny civil rights.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

So-so has nothing to do with it. It’s not a matter of “feelings”, which I didn’t opine on. I simply pointed out the fact that limitations on marryin’ cousins was motivated by public health concerns, as was the limitation of issuing a license to someone with syphilis.

Recalling that we are only talking about state and legal issues, a parent-child civil union would actually undercut a legal status that already exists. Wouldn’t be in the self interest of either. They are already accorded rights that accrue to next of kin.

I asked if it should be legal for a mother and her child to marry. You say that such a union would be unnecessary because they are already next-of-kin. But that does not answer the question. There may be other reasons why two people want to get married besides inheritance. It is not up to us to second-guess why people should want to do things. Maybe they want to have children together. I think the question still deserves an answer. If a mother (let’s say a widow) and her adult child want to get married, can the state stand in their way? Based on your previous argument that it is none of government’s business who wants to get married, one would think your answer to this question would be the same. So please confirm it, or explain why you want government to make an exception in this case.

 

[SuperLuigi]

I am having a debate with a friend fo mine who, while Christian, basically holds the position that gay marriage is okay as long as his church is not forced to marry homosexuals. Basically he comes from a nondenominational perspective, so saying marriage is a sacrament doesn’t work. Also, he accuses me of supporting a theocracy when I say that states shouldn’t allow gay marriage and that its intolerant to deny them their rights. He also says that as Christians we have to love others. I tried to tell him how while I don’t support marriage, I am not for violence or discrimination of gays and even recognize some people are born with same sex inclinations (which is why i’m against conversion therapy unless the person wants this… is this in line with church teaching btw?) so how do I argue this. It’s complicated because he is a very devout Christian, but its complicated because he’s very knowledgeable and believes in a lot of typical non-denom teachings (earth is 6000 years old, Faith alone etc). Also how do I not come off sounding like some 16th century papal monarchist who wants a theocracy. I don’t want this, but i am sure he’ll make it sound like i do since he always talks about how bad Christendom was and how people didn’t have jesus in their hearts at this time even though it was the law of the land.

I know there is a lot in here, but any help would be appreciated. Thanks a bunch.

Wild Catholic

Please read this link.

tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html

(which is why i’m against conversion therapy unless the person wants this.

Individuals, not governments, should decide in collaboration with proper professionals what kind of therapy they need.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Nope, it doesn’t. An obscure case about peyote came before the Supreme Court in the 1990s, and the Court ruled – with Scalia, I believe, ironically writing the opinion – that the state could override the consciences of citizens with respect to religious practices that were deemed merely attempts to avoid a federal law. Without too much stretching, this ruling could be used to force churches to officiate gay weddings.

That won’t happen in the next few years, but it might someday.

Interesting case. …I agree it would be quite a stretch.

Remember, Prohibition had to exclude the use of “Sacramental wines and spirits”. (We had a record number of converts to Catholicism back then)

I think Employment Division vs. Smith would, more likely, be directed towards cases involving “religions” that called for human sacrifice or honor killings.

 

[SuperLuigi]

I went back to check and it seems you talk about incest and polygamy, AKA not gay marriage.

The discussion is about marriage, so discussing incest and polygamy is quite appropriate, especially since many gay “marriage” activists pull the “two consenting adults” card.

You also seem to think the government only makes contracts if it’s beneficial to the government, which isn’t actually the case, the government also gets involved in matters of equality even if it doesn’t actually benefit the government to do so.

 

[MacQ]

I asked if it should be legal for a mother and her child to marry. You say that such a union would be unnecessary because they are already next-of-kin. But that does not answer the question. There may be other reasons why two people want to get married besides inheritance. It is not up to us to second-guess why people should want to do things. Maybe they want to have children together. I think the question still deserves an answer. If a mother (let’s say a widow) and her adult child want to get married, can the state stand in their way? Based on your previous argument that it is none of government’s business who wants to get married, one would think your answer to this question would be the same. So please confirm it, or explain why you want government to make an exception in this case.

You must have missed the part where I said (about 10 times so far) that there are only specific purposes for declaring legal unions that pertain to government, which are…read slowly now…legal matters where next of kin must be determined.

Nothing to do with having children.
They don’t ask straight couples NOW whether they’re in love or want to have children, so why bring that in? To Niggle?
Not to mention that having children together doesn’t require a marriage or a license, in case you haven’t noticed.

Why are you so wee’wee’d up in fright that some parent is going to want to declare a civil union with their child?
So what if they do? They’ll pay more tax, that’s all.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Why are you so wee’wee’d up in fright that some parent is going to want to declare a civil union with their child?
So what if they do? They’ll pay more tax, that’s all.

Instead of trying to analyze what might frighten me, just give a yes or no answer. I think you are leaning toward “yes” but I just want to know for sure.

Do you favor a government policy that would allow a mother and her adult son to declare a civil union, understanding that one of things that might come out of a civil union is a child born of these two people?

Please make the very first word you type in response to this the word yes or no. After that you can add whatever additional explanation you feel is necessary.

 

[MacQ]

Instead of trying to analyze what might frighten me, just give a yes or no answer. I think you are leaning toward “yes” but I just want to know for sure.

Do you favor a government policy that would allow a mother and her adult son to declare a civil union, understanding that one of things that might come out of a civil union is a child born of these two people?

Please make the very first word you type in response to this the word yes or no. After that you can add whatever additional explanation you feel is necessary.

I can’t answer a question that is absurd.
A marriage license does not NOW necessarily lead to a child, and that intent is not necessary to get said license.
Meanwhile, children DO emanate from unions that are not marriages, or recognized in any way by the state.
The two have nothing to do with each other.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Instead of trying to analyze what might frighten me, just give a yes or no answer. I think you are leaning toward “yes” but I just want to know for sure.

Do you favor a government policy that would allow a mother and her adult son to declare a civil union, understanding that one of things that might come out of a civil union is a child born of these two people?

Please make the very first word you type in response to this the word yes or no. After that you can add whatever additional explanation you feel is necessary.

Psssst, Leaf…

If he answers YES, ask him about allowing a pedophile and an 11 year old to declare a civil union…

 

[MacQ]

Psssst, Leaf…

If he answers YES, ask him about allowing a pedophile and an 11 year old to declare a civil union…

Why don’t the two of you get together and come up with even more ways to pervert what I said? And stroke each other’s notion that making a law can prevent some behavior.
Call it an uncivil union.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Why don’t the two of you get together and come up with even more ways to pervert what I said? And stroke each other’s notion that making a law can prevent some behavior.
Call it an uncivil union.

Mac, old sport, What I understand about Leaf’s point is that the state has the authority and responsibility to place restrictions on civil unions and/or marriages for the good of society.

If you agree with that…then I am sorry for butting into your discussion.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I can’t answer a question that is absurd.
A marriage license does not NOW necessarily lead to a child, and that intent is not necessary to get said license.
Meanwhile, children DO emanate from unions that are not marriages, or recognized in any way by the state.
The two have nothing to do with each other.

I do disagree with your view of the role of laws in society. Laws can and should play a role in forming behavior. Others have made that point to you already and you have dismissed them on a case by case basis. For instance, we outlaw murder because we want to discourage murder. We outlaw spitting on the sidewalk because we want to discourage unsanitary sidewalks. And we outlaw marriage between a mother and her son because we want to discourage them from having children. Although marriage does not guarantee children, it does come with the expectation and approval by society of their having children. Granting a marriage license to a mother and her son is like saying we really don’t care if you two decide to have children, when in fact we can and should care.

I know you have stated that the civil aspect of marriage should be limited to inheritance rights. But the fact is, society in general sees civil recognition of marriage as the single most significant defining feature of who is married and who is not. Society does not view this relationship as merely conferring inheritance rights. If you change the meaning of civil marriage to merely inheritance rights, you would be redefining marriage more radically than the same-sex marriage advocates, so as to remove most of the value from the relationship. Your redefinition is so far from the present understanding as to make any statement about it irrelevant to the present thread, which is about government allowing same sex marriage. In the context of this thread, same sex marriage means marriage with all the current governmental attachments. Regardless of what word you use, civil society should have an interest in recognizing marriages as they are currently understood.

 

[lutheranyouth]

I’d say since governments aren’t to recognize or support any particular religion, and to Me at least only support marriage because it supports women and children form bummy husbands, shouldn’t support marriage unless the two parties have one or more kid. So I’d say gay or straight, if you have kids, there ought to be benefits. (I know this doesn’t really answer the question, but I don’t think it really should be banned in a secular government)

 

[MacQ]

Mac, old sport, What I understand about Leaf’s point is that the state has the authority and responsibility to place restrictions on civil unions and/or marriages for the good of society.

If you agree with that…then I am sorry for butting into your discussion.

Aye, and so it does. And there’s the rub–deciding what’s good for society.
And the state is known to abuse its powers from time to time.

I think the state should take care not to deny anyone their civil rights in the process of deciding what’s good for society…
I don’t see how allowing same sex couples to declare themselves in a civil union for purposes appropriate to state interests does any harm to society.
Encouraging stable homes is good for society–why restrict that value to heterosexuals?
Does restricting civil unions cause people to give up being gay?

Frankly, I think people who fear mothers will want to marry their sons and have children are letting their fantasies run wild… or something.

 

[MacQ]

I do disagree with your view of the role of laws in society. Laws can and should play a role in forming behavior. Others have made that point to you already and you have dismissed them on a case by case basis. For instance, we outlaw murder because we want to discourage murder. We outlaw spitting on the sidewalk because we want to discourage unsanitary sidewalks. And we outlaw marriage between a mother and her son because we want to discourage them from having children. Although marriage does not guarantee children, it does come with the expectation and approval by society of their having children. Granting a marriage license to a mother and her son is like saying we really don’t care if you two decide to have children, when in fact we can and should care.

I know you have stated that the civil aspect of marriage should be limited to inheritance rights. But the fact is, society in general sees civil recognition of marriage as the single most significant defining feature of who is married and who is not. Society does not view this relationship as merely conferring inheritance rights. If you change the meaning of civil marriage to merely inheritance rights, you would be redefining marriage more radically than the same-sex marriage advocates, so as to remove most of the value from the relationship. Your redefinition is so far from the present understanding as to make any statement about it irrelevant to the present thread, which is about government allowing same sex marriage. In the context of this thread, same sex marriage means marriage with all the current governmental attachments. Regardless of what word you use, civil society should have an interest in recognizing marriages as they are currently understood.

I previously acknowledged that laws do serve the function of curbing harmful behavior, and gave murder and theft as examples.
Those laws do not deprive anyone of the civil rights that others have based on who they are.
My point has always been that laws should apply to everyone equally.
With regard to marriage, if you want to say there’s a societal value, then why is a stable monogamous home a value you would restrict to heterosexuals?

With your mother-son and childbearing argument, you confuse the religious sense of marriage with the notion of a secular civil union, which I have tried (and obviously failed) to differentiate. Sorry, but I think that the state should be secular.
Add to that the FACT that the sickos you’re so afraid of have never needed to be “married” to do such things.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I previously acknowledged that laws do serve the function of curbing harmful behavior, and gave murder and theft as examples.
Those laws do not deprive anyone of the civil rights that others have based on who they are.

Those laws do deprive thieves of their civil rights to be thieves. What’s that? You say there is no civil right to be a thief? Well, there also is no civil right to marry someone of the same sex. (At least until the Supreme Court said otherwise in their ill-advised ruling). Prohibiting same sex marriage would not discriminate against anyone based on who they are. It discriminates against them based on what they want to do.

My point has always been that laws should apply to everyone equally.

It already does, even with a prohibition against same sex marriage. It is prohibition against an action, not a person.

With regard to marriage, if you want to say there’s a societal value, then why is a stable monogamous home a value you would restrict to heterosexuals?

You assume too simplistic an explanation for the societal value. It is not just about forming an efficient and stable economic unit.

With your mother-son and childbearing argument, you confuse the religious sense of marriage with the notion of a secular civil union

You keep bringing that up, but it just isn’t true. I think mother-son marriages are bad for very secular scientifically founded reasons.

…the FACT that the sickos you’re so afraid of have never needed to be “married” to do such things.

No, but allowing them to marry would condone their having children. I picked the example not as a typical one but as an extreme example that illustrates that there are marriages that just should not be.

 

[MacQ]

Those laws do deprive thieves of their civil rights to be thieves. What’s that? You say there is no civil right to be a thief? Well, there also is no civil right to marry someone of the same sex. (At least until the Supreme Court said otherwise in their ill-advised ruling). Prohibiting same sex marriage would not discriminate against anyone based on who they are. It discriminates against them based on what they want to do…

The difference is that NO ONE has a right to be a thief. Thus, laws against theft apply to everyone equally. Some people do, however have the right to marry.

You keep bringing that up, but it just isn’t true. I think mother-son marriages are bad for very secular scientifically founded reasons…

Who in God’s name said or even HINTED that a mother son marriage would be good?..Why would you state that as if you’re disagreeing with someone who posited that they were good.
If you’re descending to that kind of tactic, I think we’re done.
I pretty much think we are anyway.