How do supporters of so-called "same-sex marriage" define marriage?

  • Thread starter Thread starter livingwordunity
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
trapper1 said:
Why only a couple? Why not three or four?
Click to expand...
If you’re going to post, could you please keep up with what is being said? That’s exactly what we’ve just been discussing with the past several posts.
 
peduzzi89 said:
If you’re going to post, could you please keep up with what is being said? That’s exactly what we’ve just been discussing with the past several posts.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I’m busy. Could you summarize? 🙂
 
trapper1 said:
Sorry, I’m busy. Could you summarize? 🙂
Click to expand...
Well I’d basically have to just retype the last page or two of responses so it would be easier for you to just read several of the most recent ones until you get a handle on my response to scipio337’s proposition, which was basically the same as yours.
 
peduzzi89 said:
I am talking about in cases where no such power of attorney has ever been designated. Normally the decision would be up to the next of kin, normally the spouse. But if there’s more than one and no power of attorney arrangements has ever been made, you have a huge problem.

I am fine with domestic partnerships that grant all the same rights as married couples. The problem with the current ones is that they don’t give couples rights at the federal level, of which there are over 1000.
Click to expand...
But there are numerous cases where the “next of kin” involves more than one person, if the person in question wasn’t married. An ideal situation? Probably not (a living will would also work). An impossible legal conundrum? No.

In the California example, California legalizing same sex “marriage” didn’t get them federal benefits, either.

So why the push?
40.png
peduzzi89:
What, then, do you suspect is the motivating factor? Such would be news to me.
Click to expand...
Social acceptance by judicial fiat.

The In re Marriage Cases decision pretty much laid it out:
These core substantive rights include, most fundamentally, the opportunity of an individual to establish — with the person with whom the individual has chosen to share his or her life — an officially recognized and protected family possessing mutual rights and responsibilities and entitled to the same respect and dignity accorded a union traditionally designated as marriage…
Click to expand...
…consigning same-sex couples to “domestic partnerships” impinges upon the fundamental right to marry by denying such legal relationships equal dignity and respect.
Click to expand...
courts.ca.gov/documents/S147999.pdf

In other words, there were no rights that weren’t protected through the partnerships, but because it doesn’t carry the heft of the 2,000 year+ historical precedent of the label “marriage”, wasn’t “equal enough”.
 
scipio337 said:
But there are numerous cases where the “next of kin” involves more than one person, if the person in question wasn’t married. An ideal situation? Probably not (a living will would also work). An impossible legal conundrum? No.

In the California example, California legalizing same sex “marriage” didn’t get them federal benefits, either.

So why the push?

Social acceptance by judicial fiat.

The In re Marriage Cases decision pretty much laid it out:

courts.ca.gov/documents/S147999.pdf

In other words, there were no rights that weren’t protected through the partnerships, but because it doesn’t carry the heft of the 2,000 year+ historical precedent of the label “marriage”, wasn’t “equal enough”.
Click to expand...
There were no STATE level rights that weren’t protected. Federal level rights? No.

I don’t believe in as much social acceptance as you are implying. I believe that gay people shouldn’t be discriminated against, but you should still have your right to personally oppose it if you choose.
 
peduzzi89 said:
I mean the general debate over the issue. But yes, I’ll say that’s my working definition though I may have more to add if someone makes a specific point against it.
Click to expand...
I think the general debate is ontological not civil. There was man before the State. Before we can talk about all the things the state has deemed beneficial and productive toward society, we need to define what it is the State saw that caused it to take a stake in marriage.
Stephen168 said:
So you exclude polygamy.
Click to expand...
peduzzi89 said:
Because many rights afforded to married couples by definition involve two people and have no counterpart possible for involving more people. A contract binding more than two people would be a completely different set of rights because of the intrinsically different set of people involved. Whereas, with two people, none of the legal rights involved inherently depend on one being a man and one being a woman. The exact same contract can be applied to two men or two women.
Click to expand...
Contracts require the State. So none of this seems to provide ontological reason for excluding polygamy. Many societies do it.
Stephen168 said:
Where do the children come from?
Click to expand...
peduzzi89 said:
You and I both know where the children come from, so what’s your point?
Click to expand...
Yes, they come from two people of the opposite sex. You said marriage is for the likely raising of children, yet you want to include same-sex couples which are ontologically sterile.
 
peduzzi89 said:
There were no STATE level rights that weren’t protected. Federal level rights? No.
Click to expand...
But what they have now in California, (same sex "marriage) ALSO doesn’t give any Federal level rights.

Its a distinction without difference.
40.png
peduzzi89:
I don’t believe in as much social acceptance as you are implying. I believe that gay people shouldn’t be discriminated against, but you should still have your right to personally oppose it if you choose.
Click to expand...
I agree that gay people shouldn’t be discriminated against, but some don’t see redining “marriage” as discriminatory. Others argue that it is.
 
Stephen168 said:
I think the general debate is ontological not civil. There was man before the State. Before we can talk about all the things the state has deemed beneficial and productive toward society, we need to define what it is the State saw that caused it to take a stake in marriage.

Contracts require the State. So none of this seems to provide ontological reason for excluding polygamy. Many societies do it.

Yes, they come from two people of the opposite sex. You said marriage is for the likely raising of children, yet you want to include same-sex couples which are ontologically sterile.
Click to expand...
I don’t think I understand what you’re saying with your second to last statement. As for your last, it’s possible for a straight couple to be ontologically sterile…should they not be allowed to get married?
 
scipio337 said:
But what they have now in California, (same sex "marriage) ALSO doesn’t give any Federal level rights.

Its a distinction without difference.

I agree that gay people shouldn’t be discriminated against, but some don’t see redining “marriage” as discriminatory. Others argue that it is.
Click to expand...
I know it didn’t, and I don’t believe it was the last step.

But of course, whether or not you think denying them marriage is discriminatory is at the heart of this whole debate.
 
peduzzi89 said:
I don’t think I understand what you’re saying with your second to last statement.
Click to expand...
To combine my first two statements. Marriage existed before the State. There is something about marriage with caused the State to take a stake in it. Your reason for why this ancient per state marriage cannot include more than two persons assumes there is a state (contract law requires a state). Therefore your objection to polygamous marriage doesn’t make sense; especially knowing other societies do it. Excluding polygamy is irrational.
peduzzi89 said:
As for your last, it’s possible for a straight couple to be ontologically sterile…should they not be allowed to get married?
Click to expand...
No, it is not possible for an opposite sex couple to be ontologically sterile. (see post #77). Yes they should be allowed to marry cause they are not ontologically sterile like same sex couples.
 
peduzzi89 said:
Didn’t you read what I just said? You proved my point, in fact, that many people like yourself seem to think that all pro-gay people rely on such silly arguments. Meanwhile, many many more people are working to promote our cause with stalwart, legal arguments involving rights and benefits to society. But by what you’ve said it seems that if you don’t see those people in the media, you don’t seem to know they exist.
Click to expand...
What do you mean by “our cause”?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top