Illinois passes same sex marriage bill

[DrTaffy]

The examples YOU gave were well documented forms of Roman homosexual unions. I find no evidence in Roman law defining that sort of relationship as a marriage.

They all explicitly refer to ‘marriage’ - often being quite bitter about the fact that the wedding was identical to the heterosexual rite. So these are hostile (anti-gay-marriage) witnesses in most cases. Yet they say nothing about the marriage being not legally valid.

If you can show me where I am wrong, Please let me know, otherwise, the FACT that no civilized culture with a written history ever defined a homosexual relationship as a marriage remains.

So your evidence for your assertion is, in fact, zero?

I am familiar with at least one argument that has been presented here on CAF to suggest that such marriages must have been invalid, an argument that was very weak in my opinion, but you have not even that much? Just your assertion that even the marriage of the Emperor was legally invalid simply because you say so?

 

[DrTaffy]

Why is there always so much focus in these discussions on gay MEN getting married and how unnatural it is for for gay MEN to have sex?

It seems that those who are anti gay marriage (or just anti homosexual activity in general) are far more offended by male homosexual activity then female.

Gay men are scary. Lesbians are titillating.

Also there is a bizarre but very clear obsession with anal sex, which of course lesbians do not have the equipment for. Even though not all gay men engage in it (only about 2/3) and many heterosexuals do (about 1/3 - implying that the rate of anal sex among heterosexual couples is about equal to that among gay+lesbian couples) the discussions about same sex marriage are reduced time and time again, by Catholics, to discussions of anal sex.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

You mean the dozens of examples spanning the entire globe and the whole of recorded history?

How many examples do you think it takes to establish that ‘marriage’ has, in the past, referred to same sex couples?

How about at least 5% of all marriages?

No, those opposed to same sex marriage try to make the argument from tradition: that marriage has only ever meant one man and one woman, and so should not be ‘redefined’ as they put it. I merely point out that the argument from tradition is a fallacy, and that the premise is false.

You can shrug all you want, but the acceptance of same-sex marriage in society has never been more than an exceptional oddity.

Ah, so this howwible howwible injustice to which you are being subjected is not even that your own children are being taught objective truths that you would prefer to conceal from them, but that you are not being allowed to indoctrinate other people’s children into your prejudices against homosexuals?

It is preferable to allowing those children to be indoctrinated into accepting homosexuality as normal. And it is very common in most societies that people care about what happens to all children besides their own. Just ask any elementary school teacher what motivates them.

No, it is a matter of established fact that same sex relationships are socially acceptable in western society today.

It is that very acceptance that is being debated here. You can’t win an argument by simply claiming that the argument is over!

 

[DrTaffy]

It is not that same sex couples are infertile. It is that they cannot have sex.

That will come as a surprise to anyone who has known a same sex couple. If anything they seem to do it more often and better than heterosexuals, if only because they are more willing to talk about it - which I suspect might be part of the reason for homophobic bitterness.

They are certainly capable of producing children.

Marriage is ordered to marital sex. They are naturally incapable of conjugal relations.

I sense a circular argument. Only heterosexual sex is defined as ‘marital sex’ or ‘conjugal relations’, amiright?

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

They can marry, as all agree. Hence the argument that “same sex couples cannot marry because they cannot have children” is invalid. Infertility is not a valid bar to marriage.

It is the POTENTIAL that fulfills the definition in these cases.

Homosexuals CAN marry…others of the opposite sex.

After an orchidectomy or a hysterectomy? I think not.

Again…potential. Past or present.

Marriage existed before Christianity. Christianity has had no problems redefining the forms of marriage it found in existence earlier. Polygamy was not uncommon before Christianity, and Christians changed that definition. You are on weak ground here. Christians define Christian marriage. Mormons define Mormon marriage. Civil law defines civil marriage.

Christianity has never really redefined marriage. In the case of polygamy, Christians would be forced by reason to define a polygamist relationship as a marriage as long as opposite sexes were involved. A homosexual “threesome” might (in a stretch) be defined as polygamy…but never a marriage.

In the US, many judges have found it warranted by the Constitution. That is sufficient warrant for civil law.

These judges have INTERPRETED the Constitution using the anti discrimination clause. There was no “warrant” considered.

The states cannot violate anyone’s right to marriage. Unless the judge redefined marriage, homosexuals have the right to marry a person of the opposite sex just like the rest of us.
There are other complications. Most states have specific laws regarding the consummation of a marriage in conjunction with civil divorce and/or annulments. These laws would have to be changed if marriage was redefined to include same sex. It is my guess that the gay community would rather leave these laws in place to make divorce and/or annulments quick and easy.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

They all explicitly refer to ‘marriage’ - often being quite bitter about the fact that the wedding was identical to the heterosexual rite. So these are hostile (anti-gay-marriage) witnesses in most cases. Yet they say nothing about the marriage being not legally valid.

Who is “they”?

I am not finding anything in Roman law that defines a homosexual relationship as a marriage.

So your evidence for your assertion is, in fact, zero?

It has to be…there is no evidence. LOL Don’t you get it?

That is my assertion…there is no evidence.:banghead:

I am familiar with at least one argument that has been presented here on CAF to suggest that such marriages must have been invalid, an argument that was very weak in my opinion, but you have not even that much? Just your assertion that even the marriage of the Emperor was legally invalid simply because you say so?

Maybe this will help…notes about Roman law:

“The word matrimonium, the root for the English word “matrimony,” defines the institution’s main function. Involving the mater (mother), it carries with it the implication of the man taking to woman in marriage to have children. It is the idea conventionally shared by Romans as to the purpose of marriage, which would be to produce legitimate children; citizens producing new citizens.”

Nero could call his arrangement with other men and young boys a marriage, or anything he wanted to…he was the Emperor. That didn’t change the Roman definition of marriage.

The apple and orange example comes to mind.

 

[rossum]

It is the POTENTIAL that fulfills the definition in these cases.

Where is the POTENTIAL in the case of a man with an orchidectomy?

Homosexuals CAN marry…others of the opposite sex.

This argument was made in Loving v Virginia and rejected by the Supreme Court.

Again…potential. Past or present.

Every homosexual has past or present potential to have a child. Both partners in a same sex marriage have past or present potential to have a child. You have shot yourself in the foot. You really need to think through your arguments before posting them.

Christianity has never really redefined marriage.

Look at the title of this thread: “Illinois passes…” We are discussing civil law here, not Church law. Civil law has redefined marriage repeatedly.

These judges have INTERPRETED the Constitution using the anti discrimination clause. There was no “warrant” considered.

Those judges are employed to interpret the constitution. The found sufficient legal warrant (= justification) to make the decisions they did.

The states cannot violate anyone’s right to marriage.

We agree. This is the equal protection basis on which many of these recent legal decisions are made.

Unless the judge redefined marriage, homosexuals have the right to marry a person of the opposite sex just like the rest of us.

Read the decision in Loving v Virginia. This argument has already been rejected by the USSC.

rossum

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Every homosexual has past or present potential to have a child. Both partners in a same sex marriage have past or present potential to have a child. You have shot yourself in the foot. You really need to think through your arguments before posting them.

You and Zoltan are referring to two different uses of the word “potential”. You are referring to the potential of the individual and Zoltan is referring to the potential of the couple. By their very nature, a homosexual couple has no potential now, in the past, or in the future, of begetting a child.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

You and Zoltan are referring to two different uses of the word “potential”. You are referring to the potential of the individual and Zoltan is referring to the potential of the couple. By their very nature, a homosexual couple has no potential now, in the past, or in the future, of begetting a child.

Homosexual couples that wish to engage in reproduction get a donor for the opposing reproductive cells. Any given child may only be the biological offspring of one of them, but an offspring nonetheless.

 

[rossum]

You and Zoltan are referring to two different uses of the word “potential”. You are referring to the potential of the individual and Zoltan is referring to the potential of the couple. By their very nature, a homosexual couple has no potential now, in the past, or in the future, of begetting a child.

The same applies to heterosexual couples where the husband has had an orchidectomy before marriage, of the wife has had a hysterectomy or is post-menopausal before marriage.

The potential for children is not a requirement for either civil marriage or for Catholic marriage. This is not a good argument against same sex marriage, because it also applies to a number of opposite sex marriage. Nobody is complaining about the opposite sex marriages.

rossum

 

[LeafByNiggle]

… since you are the ones trying to impose your beliefs on those who do not share them,…

There is no objective evidence that their relationship… hurts anyone.

Let me dispense with this “objective evidence” criterion once and for all.

There are two questions we might ask about this issue. One question is whether same-sex marriage should be recognized by our society through our government. The other question is whether it is morally acceptable for one side (i.e. the anti-gay marriage group) to impose their will on the rest of society, including those who do not share their belief, just by force of majority vote. In this forum it sometimes happens that these two questions are treated as the same question. But there is an important difference between these two questions that I hope to explain. When these two questions are conflated, in an effort to answer the first question, someone may actually address the second question with an argument that goes like this:

You must show objective evidence that gay marriage is harming anyone, or else it is not fair that you should impose your will on those who do not share your belief.

The implication inherent in this argument is that the anti-gay marriage group cannot morally justify imposing their will on the rest of society without presenting what everyone agrees is objective evidence to back up their belief. I claim that the “objective evidence” criterion only applies when trying to convince someone of your belief. It does not apply to the question of the majority imposing its will on a minority.

To prove that point I will pick an analogous issue – like the selection of a national leader such as the President. Just like the gay marriage debate, there are people on both sides who strongly believe in their choice. Just like the gay marriage debate, when trying to convince someone of the rightness of your choice, you normally employ what you think is objective evidence. This evidence may not appear objective or even factually correct by the other side. But if they do accept it as objective evidence, they may change their minds and switch to your side. And just like the gay marriage debate, when a choice is made that some people strongly disagree with, those people are going to feel (and maybe will actually be) greatly harmed and inconvenienced by that choice. But here is the key thing. At the end of the day, after everyone has tried their best to convince the other side of the rightness of their choice, the will of the majority does get imposed on the rest of the people, including those who did not share the belief in the rightness of that choice. But no one seriously thinks the majority is necessarily unfair to the minority when electing a President just because they were unable to present convincing objective evidence to those who did not agree with them. In other words, the criterion of “objective evidence” is reasonable when trying to convince someone of your view, but that criterion is not reasonable when it comes to implementation of the decision once it is made by majority vote. This is the key difference between the first and second questions mentioned above.

This same consideration can be applied to any number of public policy questions too. You can expect to have to produce objective evidence when trying to convince someone of your view. But you cannot expect that acceptable objective evidence morally must be provided in order to implement a decision made by the society.

So when applied to the issue of gay marriage, this says that when I try to convince you that gay marriage is bad, you might expect that I give you objective evidence of that view. But if I cannot convince you after trying my best, then just as in electing a President, or deciding on minimum wage laws, or trade policy, the majority does morally impose its will on the minority. No one would call that intrinsically unfair in those other areas. And it is not unfair in the gay marriage question either. If you are not convinced, then too bad. That is the way it is when public policy questions of all sorts are decided. Why should it be any different with gay marriage?

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

The same applies to heterosexual couples where the husband has had an orchidectomy before marriage, of the wife has had a hysterectomy or is post-menopausal before marriage.

The potential for children is not a requirement for either civil marriage or for Catholic marriage. This is not a good argument against same sex marriage, because it also applies to a number of opposite sex marriage. Nobody is complaining about the opposite sex marriages.

rossum

You are grasping at straws…

In the remote cases wherein a man, woman or both are deprived of their ability to conceive children due to health and life threatening situations they still remain opposite sexes with a historical potential for producing children.

Homosexuals have the potential for producing children but not in a state of same sex relationship.

Nobody should complain about opposite sex marriage…that’s what marriage is

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Homosexual couples that wish to engage in reproduction get a donor for the opposing reproductive cells. Any given child may only be the biological offspring of one of them, but an offspring nonetheless.

Biologically true…but that does not redefine a same sex relationship as a marriage.

It takes two to tango.

 

[rossum]

You are grasping at straws…

Indeed you are.

In the remote cases wherein a man, woman or both are deprived of their ability to conceive children due to health and life threatening situations…

How many married post-menopausal women are there? Those are not “remote cases”. You are becoming detached from reality here. You are thrashing around, trying to find reasons to oppose civil same sex marriage, and you cannot find reasons that do not also apply to some opposite sex marriages.

…they still remain opposite sexes with a historical potential for producing children.

So, it is fine by you for someone like Gene Robinson, who has two children, to enter a same sex marriage because he has “a historical potential for producing children”?

Homosexuals have the potential for producing children but not in a state of same sex relationship.

Eighty year old women had the potential for producing children but not currently in a state of opposite sex relationship.

rossum

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Biologically true…but that does not redefine a same sex relationship as a marriage.

Correct, it doesn’t. In the context of civil marriage such a relationship can be (and has been) redefined as marriage provided that certain other requirements are met (which vary at the state level).

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Homosexual couples that wish to engage in reproduction get a donor for the opposing reproductive cells. Any given child may only be the biological offspring of one of them, but an offspring nonetheless.

But not an offspring of the couple. They could not have done it without the outside donor. It is also theoretically possible for a couple to kidnap an infant and raise him as their own. The question is not “is it possible”. The question is “should it be done”. Even if the law does permit acquiring a child through surrogacy, that does not mean the law should celebrate that kind of parenting.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

But not an offspring of the couple. They could not have done it without the outside donor. It is also theoretically possible for a couple to kidnap an infant and raise him as their own. The question is not “is it possible”. The question is “should it be done”. Even if the law does permit acquiring a child through surrogacy, that does not mean the law should celebrate that kind of parenting.

That’s an odd wording. I’ve never thought of the law as a celebrating entity and am not sure what it would mean for the law to “celebrate” something.

I’ve heard others in this forum express views against artificial insemination and surrogacy in general because it is “not natural.” Are you expressing the same thing?

 

[frobert]

Let me dispense with this “objective evidence” criterion once and for all.

There are two questions we might ask about this issue. One question is whether same-sex marriage should be recognized by our society through our government. The other question is whether it is morally acceptable for one side (i.e. the anti-gay marriage group) to impose their will on the rest of society, including those who do not share their belief, just by force of majority vote. In this forum it sometimes happens that these two questions are treated as the same question. But there is an important difference between these two questions that I hope to explain. When these two questions are conflated, in an effort to answer the first question, someone may actually address the second question with an argument that goes like this:

Your objection to SS marriage is based on a moral religious obligation which you appear to be confusing with the idea of a moral obligation or requirement, as opposed to that of an action that is (merely?) morally good. The latter encompasses the CC’s position, as expressed in Thomistic natural law, while the former is an actual duty to obey the law. The states recognize that some religions have a religious moral objection to civil law SS marriage and makes accommodations for the religious objections in that their ministers are not required to preform them.

To say that the meaning of a particular word like marriage, has always been and always will be the same is a rejection of the etymology of the word.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

That’s an odd wording. I’ve never thought of the law as a celebrating entity and am not sure what it would mean for the law to “celebrate” something.

I’ve heard others in this forum express views against artificial insemination and surrogacy in general because it is “not natural.” Are you expressing the same thing?

No, my argument is independent of that one. And the law does “celebrate” things that the society wants to recognize as a good thing. It does that by providing general recognition of that good and by granting benefits such as subsidies and special permissions. This is quite different from merely permitting something. For example, our society tolerates smoking with certain restrictions. But it does not celebrate smoking. Similarly, the law tolerates artificial insemination and surogacy. It does not celebrate it. So when the potential for children through artificial insemination is offered as support for same sex relationships, my response is that such a possibility in principle does not justify treating same sex relationships, which are tolerated by law, to the level of normal marriages, which the law does celebrate.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Your objection to SS marriage is based on a moral religious obligation

From which posting of mine do you deduce the basis of my objection to SS marriage? Certainly not the one you quoted, because in that posting I gave no basis at all for my personal objections, since that posting was not about my objections.

The states recognize that some religions have a religious moral objection to civil law SS marriage and makes accommodations for the religious objections in that their ministers are not required to preform them.

That is not much of a concession. The law also does not compel religious ministers to perform any particular normal marriage either.

To say that the meaning of a particular word like marriage, has always been and always will be the same is a rejection of the etymology of the word.

Strawman argument.