Rights homosexuals miss out on

[rossum]

If marriage has no intrinsic meaning then we can define it however we want.

What is the “intrinsic meaning” of civil marriage? Civil marriage is defined by the relevant monarch/parliament/congress/court for each country or state. I do not think that there has ever been a time in history when there was one single definition encompassed all marriages worldwide.

If marriage is whatever we define it to be there is no right to marriage.

In the USA the USSC has defined a right to marriage.

rossum

 

[Jon_S_1]

What is the “intrinsic meaning” of civil marriage? Civil marriage is defined by the relevant monarch/parliament/congress/court for each country or state. I do not think that there has ever been a time in history when there was one single definition encompassed all marriages worldwide.

In the USA the USSC has defined a right to marriage.

rossum

In the 1800’s the Supreme Court defined the right to own another human being…your point?

 

[exnihilo]

What is the “intrinsic meaning” of civil marriage? Civil marriage is defined by the relevant monarch/parliament/congress/court for each country or state. I do not think that there has ever been a time in history when there was one single definition encompassed all marriages worldwide.

It doesn’t really matter what the intrinsic meaning is. The important question is is there an intrinsic meaning. If there is then there can be rights. If there is not then there can be no rights. The problem for SSM advocates is if they claim a right they need to explain how they know it is a right and where the right comes from. Of course materialists can’t explain any right. But even non-materialist advocates need to justify their position.

It seems obvious to me that marriage is the union of a man and a woman for the purpose of creating and raising children. This comes from a rather basic study of the nature of men and women.

In the USA the USSC has defined a right to marriage.

True. And they have defined a right to abortion. They get some things right and others wrong.

 

[Rau]

Many of the rights discussed in this context, like inheritance and hospital visitation and medical decision-making, are rights that have been “incidentally” tied to marriage. That is, they are rights that seemed to be the easiest to administer by using the state of matrimony as a convenient criteria. But many of these rights could reasonably be extended to other relationships. There is nothing essential about marriage that would prevent their extension. Therefore when examples of these rights are presented as evidence, there are two possible ways to grant these rights. One is to explicitly extend them as appropriate to the specific right involved. The other way is to extend the definition of marriage to include other relationships.

While method #2 does appear to be temptingly simple, as opposed to the right-by-right consideration of method #1, I think method #1 is the preferable one. It allows the various rights to be optimally extended to just the relationships that are most appropriate for those rights, and avoids the unintentional consequences of the wholesale redefinition of marriage everywhere in law.

^^ This is correct analysis. Society has forgotten the meaning of marriage, and now thinks it is simply the legal framework that has been attached to it. If a man wants his special other (man) to be able to access an immigration Visa, that is a matter to be addressed by recognising that relationship, not relying on redefining marriage to capture that relationship too.

A civil marriage between a man and a woman is marriage. It accords with the nature of man.

 

[rossum]

In the 1800’s the Supreme Court defined the right to own another human being…your point?

And the Bible also includes the right to own another human being, though if they are Jewish you have to set them free after seven years. … Your point?

rossum

 

[rossum]

It doesn’t really matter what the intrinsic meaning is. The important question is is there an intrinsic meaning. If there is then there can be rights. If there is not then there can be no rights.

I disagree. If there is an intrinsic meaning, then there can be intrinsic rights. If there is a non-intrinsic meaning then there can be non-intrinsic rights.

Since different legal and religious entities cannot agree – four wives or one? – then it is very difficult to discern any intrinsic meaning. Does intrinsic marriage allow divorce or not? Is divorce an intrinsic right or a non-intrinsic right, depenent on local law/religion?

You assert the existence of “intrinsic marriage” but you have not shown that such a thing exists. Even the Bible cannot settle on a single definition.

The problem for SSM advocates is if they claim a right they need to explain how they know it is a right and where the right comes from.

From the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution.

Of course materialists can’t explain any right. But even non-materialist advocates need to justify their position.

The US Constitution is a good explanation for the US. British law is a good explanation for Britain. Similarly for other countries.

It seems obvious to me that marriage is the union of a man and a woman for the purpose of creating and raising children.

So, post menopausal women, and all infertile people, are forbidden marriage? I can’t see that either in US Law or in Catholic law. Have I missed something?

There are many valid marriages where children are not possible.

rossum

 

[Rau]

You assert the existence of “intrinsic marriage” but you have not shown that such a thing exists.

Given that marriage is a sexual relationship, not just a relationship of love, our bodies tell us the natural partners in marriage. How more intrinsic can it get?

 

[AyJSimon]

Given that marriage is a sexual relationship, not just a relationship of love, our bodies tell us the natural partners in marriage. How more intrinsic can it get?

Why does the male prostate have pleasure nerve endings?

 

[Rau]

Why does the male prostate have pleasure nerve endings?

Do tell…!

 

[Jon_S_1]

And the Bible also includes the right to own another human being, though if they are Jewish you have to set them free after seven years. … Your point?

rossum

My point was the Supreme Court is not always right…your point is what? That Jews owned slaves along with every other ancient culture? Are you advocating for slavery now?

 

[AyJSimon]

Do tell…!

No, I mean I’m asking you, as a seeming expert on sexual anatomy and how it supposedly proves what’s moral and what’s not - why would a gland that can be most easily accessed through the male anus have pleasure nerve endings on it?

 

[Rau]

No, I mean I’m asking you, as a seeming expert on sexual anatomy and how it supposedly proves what’s moral and what’s not - why would a gland that can be most easily accessed through the male anus have pleasure nerve endings on it?

No expertise is needed to understand the design and functioning of our sexual apparatus.

 

[AyJSimon]

No expertise is needed to understand the design and functioning of our sexual apparatus.

Excellent, so either way, you should have no difficulty explaining this peculiar design.

 

[Rau]

So, post menopausal women, and all infertile people, are forbidden marriage? I can’t see that either in US Law or in Catholic law. Have I missed something?

Some arguments for same sex ‘marriage’ rely on noting that a small % of marriages are unable to be generative, and that “therefore” another entire class of unions (ie. same sex), 100% of which also cannot be generative by virtue of their fundamental makeup, must also be eligible to be called Marriage. It’s an attempt to say that the thing the unions have in common is that which makes them Marriage, and the things that distinguish them are irrelevant. It prefers to view Marriage as whatever the State says it is (for that is the only way to get the desired result), rather than what it inherently is. If the State gets to decide, well clearly there is nothing to discuss, since the matter is rendered arbitrary.

 

[Rau]

Excellent, so either way, you should have no difficulty explaining this peculiar design.

I can no more explain that than I can explain the need of some to chew gum incessantly, or the great pleasure I derive from back massage. Perhaps you can explain the role of these things in choosing a sexual partner?

But the nature of “man + woman” - is so clear.

 

[rossum]

Given that marriage is a sexual relationship, not just a relationship of love, our bodies tell us the natural partners in marriage. How more intrinsic can it get?

IIRC some early Christian saints had celibate marriages, and were praised for it. Were those saints not married?

rossum

 

[rossum]

My point was the Supreme Court is not always right…your point is what? That Jews owned slaves along with every other ancient culture? Are you advocating for slavery now?

My point is that the Bible is not always right either.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Some arguments for same sex ‘marriage’ rely on noting that a small % of marriages are unable to be generative, and that “therefore” another entire class of unions (ie. same sex), 100% of which also cannot be generative by virtue of their fundamental makeup, must also be eligible to be called Marriage.

I would dispute the word “small”. A reasonably large number of marriages include a woman past her menopause, and so such unions are unable to be generative.

Given that such a percentage exists, then it is clear that the ability to be generative is not a requirement for marriage. Non-generative couples may form a valid marriage. Hence you need to find a different argument to counter the move to allowing same sex marriage. Using the non-generative argument is too easily countered.

rossum

 

[Rau]

IIRC some early Christian saints had celibate marriages, and were praised for it. Were those saints not married?

rossum

Were any same sex couples?

 

[Rau]

I would dispute the word “small”. A reasonably large number of marriages include a woman past her menopause, and so such unions are unable to be generative.

Given that such a percentage exists, then it is clear that the ability to be generative is not a requirement for marriage. Non-generative couples may form a valid marriage. Hence you need to find a different argument to counter the move to allowing same sex marriage. Using the non-generative argument is too easily countered.

rossum

You appear to suggest that the commitment of marriage should terminate upon menopause. My children will be still be at school then. Breaking up the family does not seem to make any sense.

The ability to be generative is not a requirement to marry or to be married and it was not the point made in my post, which was:

Some arguments for same sex ‘marriage’ rely on noting that a (small) % of marriages are unable to be generative, and that “therefore” another entire class of unions (ie. same sex), 100% of which also cannot be generative by virtue of their fundamental makeup, must also be eligible to be called Marriage. It’s an attempt to say that a thing the unions have in common is that which makes them Marriage, and the things that distinguish them are irrelevant.