I
ignatius777
Guest
I am still not sure what difference it makes how many people will affected by SSM. How is that relevant to the discussion?
- Status
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
The right you refer to is the right to marry someone of the same sex. That right is also “missed out on” by heterosexuals since they too are not able to marry someone of the same sex in states where same sex marriage is illegal. So while it is technically correct to say this is a right that homosexuals miss out on, it is more correct to say this is a right the everyone misses out on in such states.
Not in states where it is illegal, which was the OP as you directed me to see it.
I
ignatius777
Guest
This is absolutely correct. This is why gay “marriage” is nothing like civil rights.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
In making that statement I think you are assuming that SSM will only affect those who want to marry someone of the same sex. But that is not true. The recognition of marriage is also an obligation on the part of all of society to accommodate that legal status, including things like adoption rights. I’m not sure the number of people affected will be as small as you intimate.
R
rossum
Guest
As I have pointed out upthread, this argument has already failed before the USSC. You would do well to find a better one.
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
Given the prevalence of SSM in America, and Europe, the number of problems is small. Not zero, but small. Experience shows that this will not be a major problem.
rossum
I
ignatius777
Guest
Its like so many other things in life. People always have good intentions but there are always unintended consequences to the decisions we make.
M
madtom
Guest
the actual number of same sex marriages is small, yes, but the prevalence of its acceptance is very large and has just as adverse an effect on society. I was forced (while sitting in an auto repair shop’s waiting room) to watch a talk show this morning, and they were interviewing some actress who got married while pregnant and she said, “you know, we weren’t going to get married because we’re like super modern so we thought we don’t need to get married, but we did anyway.”
not only was she not challenged on her idiotic statement, people were clapping. in other words, being “super modern” means having a complete lack of understanding on the importance of marriage as the foundation of a successful society.
I
ignatius777
Guest
Thats hilarious, “super modern”? LOL They applaud because they think “super modern” means better. They’ve been duped.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
And has also been pointed out upthread, things decided by the USSC does not mean they cannot be debated here. Besides, the quote of mine you referred to was not specifically rejected as false by the USSC or anybody. How could they, since it is obviously true? What the USSC ruled on was the use of this (obvious) fact in deciding if SSM was a right. In that I also think they erred, but that is another discussion. I am currently only focused on showing the flaws in your argument.
E
exnihilo
Guest
Loving v Virginia actually proves the same sex marriage argument is invalid. The Virginia laws actually recognized the blacks and whites could get married but made those marriages illegal just as marriage between some family relations are illegal. At issue in that case was never what marriage was. In fact the Virginia law explicitly says that interracial marriage, even if conducted in another state, was not legal. Nowhere does the law assert that such marriages were not in fact marriages. With same sex marriage the argument is that there is no such thing. Marriage is, by its nature, between two people of the opposite sex.
The Supreme Court is just a court. It is not an oracle of God. I think respect for the courts is lessening as they more and more frequently rely on sophistry and ad hoc arguments to advance their causes.
In my extended family there are two sisters who never married. They lived together their whole lives. They took care of each other their whole lives. There is no reason the arguments for same sex marriage wouldn’t apply to them. But are the advocates of SSM willing to take their arguments to their logical conclusion and say two sisters can get married? I doubt it.
R
rossum
Guest
No it is not. Marriage is whatever is defined as such by the relevant civil or religious authorities. Different authorities have defined different versions of marriage in different places and at different times:
- Marriage (Jacob) = 1 husband, 2 wives, 2 handmaidens.
- Marriage (Deuteronomy 21:15) = 1 husband, 2 wives.
- Marriage (David) = 1 husband, 8 wives.
- Marriage (Solomon) = 1 husband, 700 wives, 300 concubines.
- Marriage (Nehemiah 13:25) = 1 husband, 1 wife of the same people.
- Marriage (Moslem) = 1 husband, up to 4 wives.
- Marriage (Joseph Smith) = 1 husband, many wives.
- Marriage (mainstream Mormon) = 1 husband, 1 wife.
- Marriage (Catholic) = 1 husband not previously divorced, 1 wife not previously divorced.
- Marriage (Protestant) = 1 husband, 1 wife.
- Marriage (Virginia pre-1967) = 1 husband, 1 wife of the same race.
- Marriage (Netherlands since 2001) = two adults.
- Marriage (California June 2008 - November 2008, June 2013 on) = two adults.
- Marriage (California November 2008 - June 2013) = 1 husband, 1 wife.
But it is an ‘oracle’ for the law on civil marriage in the US. It has already split from the law of God by allowing divorce and from the law of Allah by not allowing up to four wives.
rossum
R
Retread_Mick
Guest
The USSC is remarkable in its ability to come to inane, and immoral conclusions. i.e. Roe vs Wade.
I
ignatius777
Guest
And whats funny about each of those iterations of marriage not one involves only those of the same gender.
E
exnihilo
Guest
If marriage has no intrinsic meaning then we can define it however we want. If marriage is whatever we define it to be there is no right to marriage. If we can define marriage however we want then we can define it to be between two members of the opposite sex. The whole same sex marriage argument falls apart if marriage is something we define.
V
vsedriver
Guest
and this is why SSM is discriminatory. When a man and a woman marry the state see them as potential moms and dads. Every child born has a natural right to a mother and a father. It doesn’t matter if they have children or not, they are still potentially a mother and a father. That status can change at any time via adoption. Even past child bearing age a man and a woman can still fill the rolls of mother and father when grandparents raise grandchildren.
But 2 men can never be a mother and a father. 2 woman can’t either. Since a man and a woman can be potentially a mom and dad that is why a brother and sister can’t marry, or a parent and child.
If the state decides that marriage no longer includes the potential for a man and woman to be a mother or father than the state has no right to deny any family relationship union, regardless of number, depth of love (ie friends but not lovers) or close biological ties. To do otherwise is to discriminate for no just cause.
I
ignatius777
Guest
Correct and it could also include a parent marrying their adult child.
J
Jon_S_1
Guest
Do you realize that just 150 years ago arguments denying slavery and that a black man was a whole man not 1/3 of a man failed before the Supreme Court.
Thank God, people didn’t throw their hands up and say “Almighty Supreme Court has spoken”
Do you hold the court as infallible and all knowing…perhaps they are your God ruler over everything?
R
Retread_Mick
Guest
And I always thought Solomon was supposed to be very wise.
R
rossum
Guest
Erm … Read the last three more carefully.
- Status