SSM supporters: What do you think of polygamy?

[PRmerger]

Except that it is, as I have pointed out. You in fact cannot contract into all rights associated with marriage outside of marriage.

Well, I’m proposing that we should change the laws so that anyone can have anyone as their beneficiary, medical decision maker, visitor at the hospital.

If that’s the reason to have a family unit recognized formally, there doesn’t need to be a “marriage”.

You could get that legally by a simple change of the law.

In fact, as I stated, my state already does that.

There is NO REASON to have a government registry for a family unit.

You recognize the absurdity of having a government registry for friendship.

Not sure why you can’t acknowledge the absurdity of having a government registry for a family’s love.

 

[nodito]

There is NO REASON to have a government registry for a family unit.

Marriage was traditionally an institution to reward and tie parents to their natural children. And it protects children, because children deserve a mother and a father who love each other and live with one another. This is good for society. Since the nuclear family is the foundation of any society, it is good for the government to recognize and give certain benefits to married men and women that it does not give to best friends, uncles/nieces, teachers and their students, etc.

I agree that there ought to be a simple way for non-married individuals to be able to have certain rights that married couples have (such as visitation rights, etc) but I disagree that we should see any sexual relationship between any two people as having the same value (and thus deserving of the same rights and rewards) as those undertaking a marriage which has the potential to create a natural family unit.

 

[PRmerger]

Marriage was traditionally an institution to reward and tie parents to their natural children. And it protects children, because children deserve a mother and a father who love each other and live with one another. This is good for society. Since the nuclear family is the foundation of any society, it is good for the government to recognize and give certain benefits to married men and women that it does not give to best friends, uncles/nieces, teachers and their students, etc.

I agree that there ought to be a simple way for non-married individuals to be able to have certain rights that married couples have (such as visitation rights, etc) but I disagree that we should see any sexual relationship between any two people as having the same value (and thus deserving of the same rights and rewards) as those undertaking a marriage which has the potential to create a natural family unit.

Egg-zactly right.

 

[mjwise]

Well, I’m proposing that we should change the laws so that anyone can have anyone as their beneficiary, medical decision maker, visitor at the hospital.

"nodito:

I agree that there ought to be a simple way for non-married individuals to be able to have certain rights that married couples have (such as visitation rights, etc) but I disagree that we should see any sexual relationship between any two people as having the same value (and thus deserving of the same rights and rewards) as those undertaking a marriage which has the potential to create a natural family unit.

So, separate and unequal treatment by the law. That ship sunk before it even set sail. The reality is many states passed laws and constitutional amendments more or less banning what you both are suggesting as a kind of substitute for same-sex marriage, and it certainly didn’t get anywhere in federal law, and, for the record, was utterly rejected as an acceptable compromise by the USCCB anyway. It was going to be marriage or nothing, I’m afraid.

Not sure why you can’t acknowledge the absurdity of having a government registry for a family’s love.

Love? Sex? Since when was an emotion or a sexual act a prerequisite for civil marriage?

 

[Stephen168]

So, separate and unequal treatment by the law. That ship sunk before it even set sail.

Are you saying the government now treats married people the same as single people? I will no longer find married or single on my tax forms? There is no more inheritance tax?

 

[nodito]

So, separate and unequal treatment by the law.

Yes, absolutely. The government should treat different relationships differently. A relationship that binds parents to their natural children benefits society in a way that the sexual relationship of two men does not.

 

[mjwise]

Yes, absolutely. The government should treat different relationships differently. A relationship that binds parents to their natural children benefits society in a way that the sexual relationship of two men does not.

Marriage has not ceased to perform that function in the past few weeks.

Stephen168:

Are you saying the government now treats married people the same as single people? I will no longer find married or single on my tax forms? There is no more inheritance tax?

Of course government treats single and married people differently for legal purposes - after all, not much point to a civil marriage if it results in literally identical treatment. A single person, assuming they can consent, has a right to enter a marriage, of course.

 

[nodito]

The reality is many states passed laws and constitutional amendments more or less banning what you both are suggesting as a kind of substitute for same-sex marriage, and it certainly didn’t get anywhere in federal law, and, for the record, was utterly rejected as an acceptable compromise by the USCCB anyway.

I don’t want a substitute for same sex marriage, and I certainly don’t advocate for homosexual civil unions, which is what I think you’re suggesting. As far as I’m aware, the USCCB has never opposed hospital visitation rights for any particular person.

 

[nodito]

Marriage has not ceased to perform that function in the past few weeks.

I’m not claiming it did. I’m saying it’s illogical and wrong for a society to pretend that a marriage between man and woman is the same as the sexual relationship, however committed, of two men or two women. And I’m claiming it is not wrong for a government to offer incentives for relationships that benefit society in a particular way.

 

[Stephen168]

Of course government treats single and married people differently for legal purposes - after all, not much point to a civil marriage if it results in literally identical treatment. A single person, assuming they can consent, has a right to enter a marriage, of course.

So the government does not treat people equally. Not all single people can marry whoever they want (Children can’t marry parents to avoid inheritance tax). All that has happened over the last few weeks is a subset of single people will be issued marriage licenses to be treated as if they are actually married.

 

[clem456]

Marriage has not ceased to perform that function in the past few weeks.

It’s not an issue whether or not men and women continue to have children. Anyone can see what is required to cooperate in the creation of children.

The issue is the lie that is propagated, namely that a relationship other than a marriage is a marriage, when it is not.

(or if you object to me using the word “marriage”, substitute whatever word you wish…“union-of-a-man-and-woman” works well too, it’s just kinda clumsy)

In any case, it’s a lie about human nature to claim a thing is the same as another thing when common sense observation of revealed nature reveals otherwise.

Can you think of other lies that have been propagated about human nature?
What are the consequences for humanity when a lie about basic human nature is believed by enough people?

 

[PRmerger]

So, separate and unequal treatment by the law.

Yes. Because they are not equal.

It’s like you’re objecting to the fact that children cannot vote, but they must also be immunized to attend k-garten.

Separate. And unequal.

Nothing wrong with that.

That ship sunk before it even set sail. The reality is many states passed laws and constitutional amendments more or less banning what you both are suggesting as a kind of substitute for same-sex marriage, and it certainly didn’t get anywhere in federal law, and, for the record, was utterly rejected as an acceptable compromise by the USCCB anyway. It was going to be marriage or nothing, I’m afraid.

So let’s change the laws on inheritance, insurance beneficiaries, medical decision making.

But having a government registry to acknowledge the love between a “family unit” is as otiose as having a govt registry to formally recognize this:

http://refe99.com/wp-content/upload...tired-of-listening-to-your-pointles-drama.jpg

 

[PRmerger]

Love? Sex? Since when was an emotion or a sexual act a prerequisite for civil marriage?

That’s exactly the paradigm you’ve set up, mj.

Love and sex have nothing to do with marriage, in your paradigm.

Go figure.

Even little children understand love and marriage go together.

But society today has become so absurd in their thinking now that they are asserting, ostensibly with a straight face, “Since when was love a prerequisite for marriage?”

Now 'tis true that there were many a society when love and marriage didn’t go together. Marriage was a political or financial gambit…but we all know that the ideal for marriage was…love first. Then marriage. Then babies.

Even my grade schooler knows that.

 

[mjwise]

That’s exactly the paradigm you’ve set up, mj.

Now 'tis true that there were many a society when love and marriage didn’t go together. Marriage was a political or financial gambit…but we all know that the ideal for marriage was…love first. Then marriage. Then babies.

Even my grade schooler knows that.

Sure, but there’s a difference between aspirational goals of a marriage and the requirements to enter the marriage in the first place.

PRmerger:

Yes. Because they are not equal.

I was speaking of equal treatment, particularly under the law, not that you have judged them as equal relationships.

 

[PRmerger]

Sure, but there’s a difference between aspirational goals of a marriage and the requirements to enter the marriage in the first place.

What are your requirements for a marriage?

They need to make sense, and have an explanation for why you believe they are requirements, and why the govt needs to be involved.

I will do the same, once you give your answer.

I was speaking of equal treatment, particularly under the law, not that you have judged them as equal relationships.

Well, dissimilar things ought to be treated dissimilarly, don’t you think?

 

[mjwise]

What are your requirements for a marriage?

They need to make sense, and have an explanation for why you believe they are requirements, and why the govt needs to be involved.

I will do the same, once you give your answer.

I think my views have been pretty well discussed in this thread already, so I doubt that further discussion will bear fruit.

Well, dissimilar things ought to be treated dissimilarly, don’t you think?

Unequal civil treatment on the grounds of the doctrinal teachings of a particular religion? Not really.

 

[PRmerger]

I think my views have been pretty well discussed in this thread already, so I doubt that further discussion will bear fruit.

I think you have promoted an incoherent postion, mj.

That you don’t wish to articulate it again, is, I suppose, testament to your acknowledgement of this.

Unequal civil treatment on the grounds of the doctrinal teachings of a particular religion? Not really.

Not a single post of mine here on this thread has made any reference at all to any particular church or religion.

In fact, I don’t think anyone who is against same sex unions has quoted the Bible or any church doctrine.

Can you cite something here that does, esp. with regard to my posts?

 

[nodito]

Unequal civil treatment on the grounds of the doctrinal teachings of a particular religion? Not really.

My primary objection to ssm is that it hurts children and does not benefit society the way traditional marriage does. These are secular arguments, not religious ones.

 

[mjwise]

nodito:

My primary objection to ssm is that it hurts children and does not benefit society the way traditional marriage does. These are secular arguments, not religious ones.

Both parts lack an objective, nonanecdotal and nondoctrinal basis. Also “does not benefit society the way traditional marriage does” is unclear. Marriage is an individual-level right, not a collective right. Even deadbeat dads and prison inmates have a right to engage in marriage, regardless of their demonstrable lack of ability to, say, support children.

 

[nodito]

Both parts lack an objective, nonanecdotal and nondoctrinal basis. Also “does not benefit society the way traditional marriage does” is unclear. Marriage is an individual-level right, not a collective right. Even deadbeat dads and prison inmates have a right to engage in marriage, regardless of their demonstrable lack of ability to, say, support children.

I don’t think it gets any more objective than anatomy. It is the side arguing in favor of same sex marriage that makes claims based on emotions and anecdotes: “See how Jim and Dave love each other! Why don’t they deserve to be happy?” My objective, nonanecdotal, nondoctrinal basis for arguing that marriage should be about procreation is based on biology, sociology, and reason. Exactly two people are needed to procreate; one must be male and the other female. God/nature/evolution has designed us such that the ability to procreate is intimately tied with the pleasure-seeking behavior of sex. The children that result from such union will need to be cared for for many years, and these children do best when they are raised by their natural parents.

I agree that everyone should have a right to engage in marriage, including homosexuals. Marriage ought to be properly understood as the permanent fruitful union of a man and a woman. A gay man does not desire marriage, he desires to have his sexual union with another man legitimized and treated the same as marriage when it does not serve the same purpose (the begetting and raising of children with their natural parents).