Separation of religious and civil marriage

[frobert]

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…

I have made this exact point over and over. If incest advocates, polygamous advocates, bestiality advocates or xyz advocates believe that they are entitled to marriage they need to present a convincing case as did gays. Before they can make a civil rights argument they have to make a convincing case for legality. To do that they need to make a convincing case that their behavior is not harmful to the community. By your logic these advocate groups can bypass all the necessary steps and be given a free pass simply because gays have the right of civil marriage. Your logic puts the cart before the horse and needs a serious rethink.

Do a search on the harmful effects of polygamy on the community and a similar one on incest and you will get an idea of how high the bar to legality is.

 

[frobert]

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.

You and others are disingenuously conflating two entirely different things hoping that will make a fabricated argument sound reasonable. Gay marriage and incest marriage are not the same. There is no bigotry or malice or logical dissonance in treating different things differently and there are many important differences between incest marriage and gay marriage which should be obvious. Incest advocates have the same access to public opinion and the courts as gays do.

 

[PRmerger]

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

It is indeed ok, as a seed has been planted.

Seed: “It is untenable to hold the position of ‘marriage equality’ yet deny a certain group of folks this right”.

That folks can only say, “But incest is illegal!” as their rebuttal to the above speaks volumes. Or, the even more astonishing and weird “There is no such thing as people who are related who want to marry!”

Volumes.

Nothing more needs to be said.

We have done our job.

 

[frobert]

It is indeed ok, as a seed has been planted.

Seed: “It is untenable to hold the position of ‘marriage equality’ yet deny a certain group of folks this right”.

That folks can only say, “But incest is illegal!” as their rebuttal to the above speaks volumes. Or, the even more astonishing and weird “There is no such thing as people who are related who want to marry!”

Volumes.

Nothing more needs to be said.

We have done our job.

Reread my posts on incest which you appear to have been ignoring. I addressed incest several times on both its abusive and harmful nature and its legal status.Gay marriage and incest marriage are different things.

There is no bigotry or malice or logical dissonance in treating different things differently and there are many important differences between incest marriage and gay marriage which should be obvious.

 

[Rau]

It is indeed ok, as a seed has been planted.

Seed: “It is untenable to hold the position of ‘marriage equality’ yet deny a certain group of folks this right”.

That folks can only say, “But incest is illegal!” as their rebuttal to the above speaks volumes. Or, the even more astonishing and weird “There is no such thing as people who are related who want to marry!”

Volumes.

Nothing more needs to be said.

We have done our job.

Yes.

 

[Bradski]

[BIBLEDRB]k[/BIBLEDRB]

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?

I don’t see why they can’t. Maybe we should start a petition to allow equal financial rights to elderly sisters. If they are eventually allowed it, are there any other reasons why you think they’d want to get married?

Or maybe you could give us the reasons why you think they shouldn’t be able to.

 

[davidv]

And according to you , ‘meeting the definition’ is the only factor deciding if something is moral?

Not according to me. In accord with the logic that was used.

So if rape, incest or child abuse meet the definition of ‘sex’, they should be allowed?

Red herring. The definition in question is marriage.

 

[Bradski]

It is indeed ok, as a seed has been planted.

I can see the marches across the country. Millions of people with a common cause.

‘What do we want?’
'Equal Taxation Rights For Elderly Sisters To Enable Them To Submit Joint Tax Forms Just The Same As Married Couples (not That We’re Having Sex Or Anything)!
'When do we want it?
‘Now!’

 

[vsedriver]

You seem to be referring to the “concept” of marriage between one man and one woman as an indisputable fact when in reality it is a religious value judgement. Where the many cultures that have held varying concepts of marriage throughout the ages speaking nonsense?

every single one of those concepts included both male and female. The number may vary, even the kinship might vary but all involved both male and female, never the same sex.

 

[vsedriver]

I don’t understand this “let’s register friends or my mom!” argument conservatives use. There is a clear actuarial benefit of committing one’s entire life to another person.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Some corporations have made a move away from providing benefits for and employee and his/her spouse to providing benefits for an employee and one other person that is chosen by the person. Under such a change the usage of the word “marriage” doesn’t matter as much.

The person could designate the benefits to a partner of the same or opposite sex, sibling, parent, so on. Legal dependents of the employee are also elegible.

 

[vsedriver]

That some people think that gays should not enjoy equal marriage rights has nothing to do with defining marriage other than marriage is now more inclusive.

the problem is that gays have had the same equal rights to marry as anyone else. In fact there were married gays for centuries. There is no place on a marriage license where you have to declare your sexual orientation, only your gender.

If gays have the right to marry who they wish regardless of gender then by what right do you deny anyone else the right to marry who they wish? such as siblings, parent/child, etc.? Because basically you are now discriminating against the closely related. Or deny someone the right to plural marriage?

 

[DrTaffy]

[SIGN][/SIGN]
davidv;12546884:

I think that the point being missed is that the definition of marriage that you provided cannot be used to deny any of the arrangements that you declared unacceptable. Why? Because those other arrangements can meet the definition provided.

And according to you , ‘meeting the definition’ is the only factor deciding if something is moral? :

Not according to me. In accord with the logic that was used.

Used by your side, not mine.

To put it another way, why is it a problem if the definition of marriage “cannot be used to deny” versions of marriage that you feel are wrong? You agree (I assume) that rape is wrong, yet are apparently untroubled that the definition of ‘sex’ does not exclude rape.

I would suggest that the difference is that you can explain rationally why rape is wrong, but you have no such rational objective rationale for why same sex marriage is wrong. So you resort to trying to dogmatically define it out of existence.

 

[DrTaffy]

It is indeed ok, as a seed has been planted.

Several seeds, I would hope.

But will you think about the seeds that have been planted in your mind or do you still take pride in being closed to new opinion?

Seed: “It is untenable to hold the position of ‘marriage equality’ yet deny a certain group of folks this right”.

So it is untenable, according to your logic to “hold the position of ‘marriage equality’” (e.g. as regards mixed race marriages) “yet deny a certain group of folks this right” (e.g. as regards same sex marriage)?

That folks can only say, “But incest is illegal!” as their rebuttal to the above speaks volumes.

But they have not done so. They have pointed out that the vast majority of incestuous relationships are harmful and abusive, indeed are among the most common and psychologically harmful cases known to us.

Hence (in part) the importance of you producing these incestuous couples you claim to be championing. Same sex couples are well known, well studied, and pretty much all the accusations made against have been shown to be vicious lies. Indeed same sex couples are often far more pleasant and productive members of society than those accusing them of (for example) child abuse.

After all, who would you rather have in your town - Fred Phelps or Sir Ian McKellen?

Or, the even more astonishing and weird “There is no such thing as people who are related who want to marry!”

Again, you were the one who suggested that as even a possibility. Although it is very telling that you have not produced one single example!

 

[DrTaffy]

Where the many cultures that have held varying concepts of marriage throughout the ages speaking nonsense?

See the many cases of same sex marriage cited, with references, in post #116 of this thread.

If gays have the right to marry who they wish regardless of then by what right do you deny anyone else the right to marry who they wish?

For good objective reasons, or not at all. Or would you be happy for my every personal subjective belief to be forced on you?

Is the idea that you need good objective reasons to force your beliefs on others really such a slippery concept?

such as siblings, parent/child, etc.? Because basically you are now discriminating against the closely related. Or deny someone the right to plural marriage?

Both polygamy and incest have been covered in this thread. If you want to champion them, by all means start a thread to do so.

 

[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?

Remove the criminal and legal barriers in states that two ban 2 blokes from marrying, then marriage for 2 sisters or 2 blokes, would still be banned but opposite sex siblings would have the right to a civil marriage and be able to file joint tax returns even if they were not chaste.

 

[frobert]

Remove the criminal and legal barriers in states that two ban 2 blokes from marrying, then marriage for 2 sisters or 2 blokes, would still be banned but opposite sex siblings would have the right to a civil marriage and be able to file joint tax returns even if they were not chaste.

The sentence should read

Remove the criminal and legal barriers to incest in states that ban 2 blokes from marrying, then marriage for 2 sisters or 2 blokes, would still be banned but opposite sex siblings would have the right to a civil marriage and be able to file joint tax returns even if they were not chaste.

 

[frobert]

Nothing more needs to be said.

We have done our job.

Yes, I agree your job is done as you have stopped digging the hole you are in.

 

[Rau]

The sentence should read

Remove the criminal and legal barriers to incest in states that ban 2 blokes from marrying, then marriage for 2 sisters or 2 blokes, would still be banned but opposite sex siblings would have the right to a civil marriage and be able to file joint tax returns even if they were not chaste.

If 2 blokes can marry, it is difficult to see the basis for restricting arbitrary groupings. After all, we are talking about civil marriage, which we are told is simply a legal framework, that’s all.

The State certainly should object to the creation of inbred children, but the legal benefits of civil marriage are neither a prerequisite for, nor encouragement of, that!

 

[Bradski]

If 2 blokes can marry, it is difficult to see the basis for restricting arbitrary groupings. After all, we are talking about civil marriage, which we are told is simply a legal framework, that’s all.

I think that you are missing the point by a wide margin. People want to use the term because they would like it known that they are entering into a lifetime commitment to each other. If two or more people would like to arrange legal benefits similar to those enjoyed by a married couple then that is a financial matter and not one concerned with who can and can’t get married.