Separation of religious and civil marriage

[frobert]

I refer you back to post #286. You’ve not responded to most of it.

I think I responded sufficiently. If you read my previous posts you will see that I have responded generously compared to others. If you don’t think so that is ok with me.

Dr Taffy says it more eloquently than I can
Dr Taffy:

You are demanding that I support a position that I do not assert. If you want to defend the case for gay incestuous marriage do so. The fact that you cannot defend your case against gay marriage does not mean that I have to defend a strawman of your choosing.

 

[Rau]

I think I responded sufficiently. If you read my previous posts you will see that I have responded generously compared to others. If you don’t think so that is ok with me.

Dr Taffy says it more eloquently than I can
Dr Taffy:

You are demanding that I support a position that I do not assert. If you want to defend the case for gay incestuous marriage do so. The fact that you cannot defend your case against gay marriage does not mean that I have to defend a strawman of your choosing.

I’m asking you to defend your position, and you have declined. This is called ducking the question, which is ok with me too.

 

[Cyberseeker]

I agree with the opening post article. Time to draw a line and tell the state to go jump.

I hope the wider Church (Cath and Prod) make a joint stand on Christian marriage.

 

[Bradski]

There seems to be a problem in understanding the difference between two people who would wish to formalise an arrangement that would represent them to the world as a couple who would like to spend the rest of their life together and two people who already are represented in that way.

Two people who wish to marry are (generally) saying that we are two separate people who would like to be considered a couple. Two siblings, such as two sisters, already have that consideration.

Sex, for a non Catholic, is not necessarily part and parcel of marriage. Although, naturally, it does form part of the vast majority of marriages. The unspoken question in asking why two siblings cannot get married seems to be: ‘why can’t two sisters have sex as well?’

That is is a question about incest and not about marriage.

 

[Rau]

There seems to be a problem in understanding the difference between two people who would wish to formalise an arrangement that would represent them to the world as a couple who would like to spend the rest of their life together and two people who already are represented in that way.

Two people who wish to marry are (generally) saying that we are two separate people who would like to be considered a couple. Two siblings, such as two sisters, already have that consideration.

Sex, for a non Catholic, is not necessarily part and parcel of marriage. Although, naturally, it does form part of the vast majority of marriages. The unspoken question in asking why two siblings cannot get married seems to be: ‘why can’t two sisters have sex as well?’

That is is a question about incest and not about marriage.

There Is no need for marriage if it’s impact is to create “couple-hood” which you say above that 2 sisters already possess. And what about 2 third cousins. Apparently, there is no couple-hood there.

The State cares not who your sister might be. Unless you want to access the legal framework and benefits of civil marriage.

Why the state should care about same sex, adult incest is another question.

 

[DrTaffy]

I’m asking you to defend your position, and you have declined. This is called ducking the question, which is ok with me too.

No, you are asking him to defend a distorted misrepresentation of his position. Or in this case arguably a completely fictitious position that you ascribe to him.

That is called a ‘strawman’ fallacy and when persisted in after correction tends to be dishonest.

 

[Bradski]

There Is no need for marriage if it’s impact is to create “couple-hood” which you say above that 2 sisters already possess. And what about 2 third cousins. Apparently, there is no couple-hood there.

The question at the moment is how some people come to terms with the fact that marriage now includes two members of the same sex. Most people I would assume get married to ‘become’ a couple. Not necessarily in the consideration of the state but of the world in general.

My wife and I were two separate people before we were married but now, as well as being individuals, we are considered a couple. Two sisters would always be considered joined together in an intimate manner that my wife and I did not have originally.

And as for third cousins, or even second or immediate cousins, that’s a matter that’s concerned with incest and not marriage. Different states, different religions and different people have different views. Topic for another thread.

 

[Rau]

No, you are asking him to defend a distorted misrepresentation of his position. Or in this case arguably a completely fictitious position that you ascribe to him.

That is called a ‘strawman’ fallacy and when persisted in after correction tends to be dishonest.

No, I am not. His position is that 2 arbitrary men should be allowed to marry but 2 sisters should not. He gives no rational reason for drawing the line where he does.

 

[Rau]

The question at the moment is how some people come to terms with the fact that marriage now includes two members of the same sex. Most people I would assume get married to ‘become’ a couple. Not necessarily in the consideration of the state but of the world in general.

My wife and I were two separate people before we were married but now, as well as being individuals, we are considered a couple. Two sisters would always be considered joined together in an intimate manner that my wife and I did not have originally.

And as for third cousins, or even second or immediate cousins, that’s a matter that’s concerned with incest and not marriage. Different states, different religions and different people have different views. Topic for another thread.

So sisters who want to see out their lives together, share a house etc, can’t file joint tax returns, but 2 unrelated blokes can?

 

[DrTaffy]

Please try and understand the analogs, Taffy.

What is being compared is polyamorous relationships with homosexual relationships

Please try to understand (and honestly relate) the facts, PR.

I provided empirical evidence from history that polygamous marriage is harmful to society. You have now claimed both that:
There has never been a society in history with same sex marriage
You have empirical evidence from history that such marriage is harmful to society.
This is where you would post an insulting GIF, but that would be neither mature nor polite behaviour.

Well, you don’t assert it because you’re being inconsistent.

You think that I am being inconsistent, but that just results from your failure to understand my position, despite repeated corrections on this point. You don’t understand my position on the (carefully chosen) issue of gay incestuous marriage, because we have never had a full discussion on the topic and I have no intention of derailing this thread into a discussion of it. That does not give you the right to invent opinions on that topic and attribute them to me.

If you want to champion incestuous marriage, feel free to do so on an appropriate thread. I would suggest starting by identifying these gay siblings you pretend to be championing.:yawn:

And, incidentally, what would be wrong with an obsession with anal sex? What a peculiar point to make.

If it’s just another way to give someone pleasure, why point it out? It would be like saying, “Why are you guys so obsessed with giving people flowers! All you talk about is flowers, flowers, flowers”

You are not obsessed about giving people flowers yourself, you are obsessed about other people growing and giving flowers, and are arrogantly trying to prevent them from doing so, and derailing any discussion about horticulture with rants about flowers. While claiming that gardeners are the ones with a problem about obsessing over flowers.

(I probably need to point out that the above is a metaphor)

Well, it’s just amusing to me that you can’t offer a single reason incestuous marriages that are loving can’t be legal.

I can offer a number of excellent reasons not to even try to discuss incestuous marriages here. e.g. :
It is off-topic
It is clearly a red herring to deflect attention from your failure to argue against same sex marriage
It is clearly a deliberately inflammatory topic, and you are prone to trying to provoke people then threatening them with moderatorial retaliation

(PS incestuous relationships can and have been legal, the question is should they be.)

What if it made her happy and good to believe in this fat guy who lives in the North Pole? You still wouldn’t let her continue in her faulty belief?

So now you are arguing against freedom of religion? :whacky:

 

[frobert]

No, I am not. His position is that 2 arbitrary men should be allowed to marry but 2 sisters should not. He gives no rational reason for drawing the line where he does.

You are attacking the states position on civil marriage by proxy on what is legal and what is not, sounds like sour grapes to me, but I digress. Regardless of the legality incest is abusive and harmful. It eludes me on how anyone could genuinely believe that it is logical to include an illegal harmful behavior simply because the paradigm of marriage became gender neutral. It is a cynical and disingenuous position at best.

 

[frobert]

So sisters who want to see out their lives together, share a house etc, can’t file joint tax returns, but 2 unrelated blokes can?

And you are basing you opinion that they should be able to file joint tax returns on what? Civil rights? Start a civil rights group for sisters and make your case. By your logic the state should be consistent and open up civil marriage to them even though it is both illegal and harmful.

 

[frobert]

I refer you back to post #286. You’ve not responded to most of it.

I had answered that question twice there is no need for me to repeat myself. Do you and others always respond to every part a post?

 

[Rau]

I had answered that question twice there is no need for me to repeat myself. Do you and others always respond to every part a post?

I try to when the point has a counterpoint.

 

[frobert]

I try to when the point has a counterpoint.

Then you don’t always answer. Thanks for being honest.

 

[Rau]

You are attacking the states position on civil marriage by proxy on what is legal and what is not, sounds like sour grapes to me, but I digress. Regardless of the legality incest is abusive and harmful. It eludes me on how anyone could genuinely believe that it is logical to include an illegal harmful behavior simply because the paradigm of marriage became gender neutral. It is a cynical and disingenuous position at best.

I make no argument with the State, but rather ask why those who advocated for same sex marriage would see no equity in extending the scope wider. Apparently marriage is now sufficiently equal, and no further questions should be asked? You can’t hide behind the law, nor should you. Just as you did not feel obliged to submit to the State’s position on the nature of marriage when it opposed 2 women marrying.

The marriage of 2 women was also illegal, until it was not. The marriage of 2 sisters will be illegal only until it is not. Legality can’t be invoked as an impediment to what can or should be legal!

There is zero harm to two sisters who seek the legal framework that marriage offers. As to whether those sisters having sexual relations would harm them in a temporal way, I have no idea, but sexual relations is not in the scenario postulated.

All that is being explored is why does the definition of marriage warrant broadening from what it was to include same sex pairings, but absolutely nothing else?

 

[Rau]

Then you don’t always answer. Thanks for being honest.

Thanks, I think.

 

[frobert]

The marriage of 2 women was also illegal, until it was not. The marriage of 2 sisters will be illegal only until it is not. Legality can’t be invoked as an impediment to what can or should be legal!

You overlooked the fact that incest is harmful and abuse. Legality is still the overriding factor. If siblings what to get married the probability of them being in an incest relationship is high. So far you are basing your case that a potential incest couple should be allowed to marry simply because gays are allowed to marry. Does that sound logical. One does not have to adopt a faith belief to be anti incest.

 

[Rau]

And you are basing you opinion that they should be able to file joint tax returns on what? Civil rights? Start a civil rights group for sisters and make your case. By your logic the state should be consistent and open up civil marriage to them even though it is both illegal and harmful.

Not my opinion, but that of the legions who have argued passionately about same sex pairs being denied all the legal/civil elements of marriage if there is no same sex marriage. It was their civil rights argument.

Do you assert that arguments for same sex marriage based on the injustice of denying same sex pairs the legal framework of marriage is a bogus argument?

It seems to me that if the case that has been won in favour of same sex marriage actually has merit, then that itself is justification for others to be allowed access to it.

 

[Rau]

You overlooked the fact that incest is harmful and abuse. Legality is still the overriding factor. If siblings what to get married the probability of them being in an incest relationship is high. So far you are basing your case that a potential incest couple should be allowed to marry simply because gays are allowed to marry. Does that sound logical. One does not have to adopt a faith belief to be anti incest.

Please tell me how 2 sisters, perhaps both widows if that is of interest to anyone, seeking the legal convenience and benefits of marriage, harm themselves or anyone. How would these 2 adults “abuse” each other? Neither is a child.

You again reference what is legal in a discussion about what could be legal! That is circular. That makes no sense.

I am not arguing for expanded marriage equality (I say let’s put it back to man+woman - the reason for that demarcation is clear!) but if one accepts that 2 blokes can marry, I don’t understand how 2 brothers have a lesser claim to those legal rights. I’m just trying to discover if you have a reason to justify rejecting the brothers’ claim.