State should not deny SSX marriage? Huh

[ASimon]

As,

Ossified is good. I am all for ossified, fixed, unchanging, stable, firm ideas that I can count on.

When a state recognizes a marriage, it bestows upon the couple certain benefits which are costly to both the state and other individuals. Collecting a deceased spouse’s social security, claiming an extra tax exemption for a spouse, and having the right to be covered under a spouse’s health insurance policy are just a few examples of the costly benefits associated with marriage. In a sense, a married couple receives a subsidy. Why? Because a marriage between to unrelated heterosexuals is likely to result in a family with children, and propagation of society is a compelling state interest. For this reason, states have, in varying degrees, restricted from marriage couples unlikely to produce children.

Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason for the state to grant them the costly benefits of marriage, unless they serve some other state interest. The burden of proof, therefore, is on the advocates of gay marriage to show what state interest these marriages serve. Thus far, this burden has not been met.

We should not recognize gay marriage because there is no benefit to the state in propagating society.

You’re still coming at it the wrong way. Somebody else already made this point - the right is presumed at the outset, and the government can only deny the right if it has an interest in doing so. There doesn’t need to be a state interest in granting the right (although that helps). It only needs to demonstrate that there is a state interest in denying the right. It’s been tried, and there’s never been any such demonstration. They’ve tried to paint gay parents as being inherently inferior (and failed).

 

[CopticChristian]

You’re still coming at it the wrong way. Somebody else already made this point - the right is presumed at the outset, and the government can only deny the right if it has an interest in doing so. There doesn’t need to be a state interest in granting the right (although that helps). It only needs to demonstrate that there is a state interest in denying the right. It’s been tried, and there’s never been any such demonstration. They’ve tried to paint gay parents as being inherently inferior (and failed).

A,

So we disagree,

One may argue that lesbians are capable of procreating via artificial insemination, so the state does have an interest in recognizing lesbian marriages, but a lesbian’s sexual relationship, committed or not, has no bearing on her ability to reproduce.

Perhaps it may serve a state interest to recognize gay marriages to make it easier for gay couples to adopt. However, there is ample evidence (see, for example, David Popenoe’s Life Without Father) that children need both a male and female parent for proper development. Unfortunately, small sample sizes and other methodological problems make it impossible to draw conclusions from studies that directly examine the effects of gay parenting.

However, the empirically verified common wisdom about the importance of a mother and father in a child’s development should give advocates of gay adoption pause. The differences between men and women extend beyond anatomy, so it is essential for a child to be nurtured by parents of both sexes if a child is to learn to function in a society made up of both sexes.

Is it wise to have a scoial policy that encourages family arrangements that deny children such essentials? Gays are not necessarily bad parents, nor will they necessarily make their children gay, but they cannot provide a set of parents that includes both a male and a female.

 

[nagyszakall]

I don’t agree, though. I’m just accepting your flawed premises for the sake of the argument

Do you want or don’t you want to change the definition of marriage? You seem to accept the fact that there has been a definition of marriage around for some time, something everyone thought of when you said the word. And you have grown to disagree with that, am I correct?
So, give us YOUR definition of marriage, please, if you have one. Otherwise we can’t carry on meaningful conversation. What is marriage?

And you still did not answer me on what was silly about stating the fact that a heterosexual is not permitted to marry any single adult non-relative he/she loves, as you have claimed (which is exactly the same case for a homosexual, because the norms of whom you can marry treat everyone equally).
Brushing off a clearly stated objection to your claim, saying that it is just a “silly word game” is not how intelligent people argue their point.

 

[ASimon]

Do you want or don’t you want to change the definition of marriage? You seem to accept the fact that there has been a definition of marriage around for some time, something everyone thought of when you said the word. And you have grown to disagree with that, am I correct?
So, give us YOUR definition of marriage, please, if you have one. Otherwise we can’t carry on meaningful conversation. What is marriage?

“My definition” of marriage is irrelevant to this conversation, as I’ve said before. I want my government to recognize same-sex marriages as equally legitimate to heterosexual marriages. Whether that means I’m in favor of changing the definition of the word or not is mere trivia.

Again, the crux of the matter is, on what basis do you assert that the definition of marriage is immutable? And the answer is, your God (which I don’t believe in and which my government doesn’t recognize), and the authorities of your religion (which I don’t practice and which my government doesn’t recognize) insist on it. Sorry, but that’s not an acceptable answer, and you don’t get to steer public policy that affects millions of people based on it.

And you still did not answer me on what was silly about stating the fact that a heterosexual is not permitted to marry any single adult non-relative he/she loves, as you have claimed (which is exactly the same case for a homosexual, because the norms of whom you can marry treat everyone equally).
Brushing off a clearly stated objection to your claim, saying that it is just a “silly word game” is not how intelligent people argue their point.

You knew perfectly well what I was talking about, and since you couldn’t respond to the substance of my point, you chose to play a semantic game that evaded the issue entirely. I saw that for what it was, and I called you out on it - that’s just the way that goes.

Heterosexuals are attracted to their opposite gender. Homosexuals are attracted to their same gender. Currently, heterosexuals can marry who they’re attracted to, and homosexuals cannot. This is many things, but it is not a condition of “equal rights.” So please refrain from wasting further time and bandwidth by pretending that this wasn’t clearly my point in the first place.

 

[CopticChristian]

“My definition” of marriage is irrelevant to this conversation, as I’ve said before. I want my government to recognize same-sex marriages as equally legitimate to heterosexual marriages. Whether that means I’m in favor of changing the definition of the word or not is mere trivia.

Again, the crux of the matter is, on what basis do you assert that the definition of marriage is immutable? And the answer is, your God (which I don’t believe in and which my government doesn’t recognize), and the authorities of your religion (which I don’t practice and which my government doesn’t recognize) insist on it. Sorry, but that’s not an acceptable answer, and you don’t get to steer public policy that affects millions of people based on it.

You knew perfectly well what I was talking about, and since you couldn’t respond to the substance of my point, you chose to play a semantic game that evaded the issue entirely. I saw that for what it was, and I called you out on it - that’s just the way that goes.

Heterosexuals are attracted to their opposite gender. Homosexuals are attracted to their same gender. Currently, heterosexuals can marry who they’re attracted to, and homosexuals cannot. This is many things, but it is not a condition of “equal rights.” So please refrain from wasting further time and bandwidth by pretending that this wasn’t clearly my point in the first place.

I don’t want my government to change the definition of marriage to allow homosexuals to marry. As it stands there are states that ban SSX and as understand it about 7 that allow it. Homosexuals are not a static, rather a dynamic group, since some want to change negating, once a homosexual alwyas a homosexual. Decisions for a group that is dynamic is not the same as for one that is static.

 

[fix]

Yes, I can. Per wiki: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage

And Coptic, no - that doesn’t help. My question stands.

When in history before this immediate time? In the USA?

As for those historical citations mostly abberrations, like Nero and friends, which are not exactly proof that same sex “marriage” ever existed.

So what we see is that this is a novelty. There is no real basis for it.

 

[fix]

Again, the crux of the matter is, on what basis do you assert that the definition of marriage is immutable?

History, common sense, right reason, and logic.

And the answer is, your God (which I don’t believe in and which my government doesn’t recognize), and the authorities of your religion (which I don’t practice and which my government doesn’t recognize) insist on it. Sorry, but that’s not an acceptable answer, and you don’t get to steer public policy that affects millions of people based on it.

No the answer is logic. Public policy should not be based on disordered desires.

 

[ASimon]

History, common sense, right reason, and logic.

History is irrelevant. Many bad ideas have been defended on the basis of “we’ve always done it this way.” Common sense and logic are only as good as the premises they’re based on. And your premises are unsound.

No the answer is logic. Public policy should not be based on disordered desires.

See Exhibit A.

 

[fix]

History is irrelevant. Many bad ideas have been defended on the basis of “we’ve always done it this way.”

So you reject history because it does not support your novelty.

Common sense and logic are only as good as the premises they’re based on. And your premises are unsound.

Uh huh. That same sex marriage is impossible is self evident.

See Exhibit A.

What I see is that your position is based on your desires alone.

 

[ASimon]

So you reject history because it does not support your novelty.

I don’t uncritically accept historical tradition as a good reason to keep doing anything. Slavery has a long historical tradition, in addition to being biblically enjoined. Doesn’t make it a good idea, or a good reason to keep up the practice.

Uh huh. That same sex marriage is impossible is self evident.

Thing is, if you think it’s so impossible, and that you’ll refuse to recognize any legally recognized same-sex partnership as a “marriage,” what do you care if the government deals with it differently?

You care because you think the U.S. government should exist as a rubber stamp of Christian theology, and really, that it always existed as that. It’s the keystone of your entire argument - that we’re all just arguing over different interpretations of the same theology. We’re not. I reject your theology as a rational basis for deciding anything, and so does my government.

 

[nagyszakall]

“My definition” of marriage is irrelevant to this conversation…

…Heterosexuals are attracted to their opposite gender. Homosexuals are attracted to their same gender. Currently, heterosexuals can marry who they’re attracted to, and homosexuals cannot.

What we understand by marriage is in fact the most relevant point at issue. I find it amazing that we are discussing marriage and you refuse to define the very thing you are arguing about. And you don’t even need to involve God or religion (on which you insist so much, even though I was not forcing it on you). And no, neither hetero- nor homosexuals are able to marry just whomever they are attracted to. If it were so, I could have been married already over a million times… and there are people who are attracted to a relative or a non-adult or a non-single person; why should not they have equal rights to marry whomever they are attracted to? For crying out loud, there are people attracted to objects or animals…
That’s why definition is so important. Do you think marriage is a cohabitation of those sexually attracted to each other (which you ventured to call “love” in a previous post; another definition which is badly needed, I guess)?

 

[ASimon]

What we understand by marriage is in fact the most relevant point at issue. I find it amazing that we are discussing marriage and you refuse to define the very thing you are arguing about. And you don’t even need to involve God or religion (on which you insist so much, even though I was not forcing it on you). And no, neither hetero- nor homosexuals are able to marry just whomever they are attracted to. If it were so, I could have been married already over a million times… and there are people who are attracted to a relative or a non-adult or a non-single person; why should not they have equal rights to marry whomever they are attracted to? For crying out loud, there are people attracted to objects or animals…
That’s why definition is so important. Do you think marriage is a cohabitation of those sexually attracted to each other (which you ventured to call “love” in a previous post; another definition which is badly needed, I guess)?

No - my definition is irrelevant, as I’ve said before. The reason it’s irrelevant is because I’m not the one who insists that marriage has an immutable definition. You are. And because you continue to persist in throwing up semantic obstacles to try deflect attention from the real argument - “Oh, I can’t marry anyone I love and am attracted to, or I’d be married to a million guys already. Therefore, gays already have equal rights.” What nonsense.

We are not arguing from the same premise, so I am not required to satisfy the same conditions as you. You are the one who insists that your definition of marriage is eternal and unchanging. I ask again, on what basis do you assert this, and why should people be obliged to respect it?

 

[CopticChristian]

No - my definition is irrelevant, as I’ve said before. The reason it’s irrelevant is because I’m not the one who insists that marriage has an immutable definition. You are. And because you continue to persist in throwing up semantic obstacles to try deflect attention from the real argument - “Oh, I can’t marry anyone I love and am attracted to, or I’d be married to a million guys already. Therefore, gays already have equal rights.” What nonsense.

We are not arguing from the same premise, so I am not required to satisfy the same conditions as you. You are the one who insists that your definition of marriage is eternal and unchanging. I ask again, on what basis do you assert this, and why should people be obliged to respect it?

Lucy,

You got some splainin to do…

and that you’ll refuse to recognize any legally recognized same-sex partnership as a "marriage,"

If you cannot define it, you cannot declare it, nor govern it nor make a law about it…because the government makes laws that categorizes and defines…so until you define what you want, you can’t have it…

We want same sex marriage, without definition…just do it…

 

[Stephen168]

Heterosexuals are permitted to marry any single, adult, non-relative they love, while homosexuals aren’t.

Are you claiming that single, adult, non-relative and love are requirements for marriage?

 

[Stephen168]

Heterosexuals would then have the same right to marry someone of the same gender as homosexuals would.

Is marriage a human right or a civil right?

 

[ASimon]

Lucy,

You got some splainin to do…

If you cannot define it, you cannot declare it, nor govern it nor make a law about it…because the government makes laws that categorizes and defines…so until you define what you want, you can’t have it…

We want same sex marriage, without definition…just do it…

Answer my question - if same-sex marriage is a logical impossibility, what do you care if the government disagrees with you? Unless you think that the government merely exists to follow the Catholic handbook?

Also, I’m not the government, which is another reason I’m not required to produce a definition that you can twist around and use to obfuscate from the real issue here.

 

[Stephen168]

Also, I’m not the government, which is another reason I’m not required to produce a definition that you can twist around and use to obfuscate from the real issue here.

I think you have made the case that the pro same sex marriage camp does not know what marriage is, and do not clearly know what a right is. They are just throwing a tantrum.

 

[ASimon]

I think you have made the case that the pro same sex marriage camp does not know what marriage is, and do not clearly know what a right is. They are just throwing a tantrum.

We know perfectly well what you think it is. The problem is, whenever we try to produce an alternate definition, your side starts playing word games, or jump straight to hypotheticals of women marrying their cats, or men marrying their chainsaws.

But the fact is, your side is the one obsessed with a single, immutable definition of the word, with no compelling reason why that definition can never change (if we’re to credit that definition as legitimate in the first place).

 

[Stephen168]

We know perfectly well what you think it is. The problem is, whenever we try to produce an alternate definition, your side starts playing word games, or jump straight to hypotheticals of women marrying their cats, or men marrying their chainsaws.

But the fact is, your side is the one obsessed with a single, immutable definition of the word, with no compelling reason why that definition can never change (if we’re to credit that definition as legitimate in the first place).

The reason you can not produce a reasoned alternative to the millions year old definition of marriage is because there isn’t one. As you have said, any definition you come up with will collapse under reasoned scrutiny.
The fact that there is one immutable definition of marriage is what gives it legitimacy. You don’t like the millions year old definition, but you have no substitute, that is why it is a tantrum. By not answering my questions in post #54 and#55, it shows me you are not even attempting to think clearly; another sign of a tantrum.

 

[ASimon]

The reason you can not produce a reasoned alternative to the millions year old definition of marriage is because there isn’t one. As you have said, any definition you come up with will collapse under reasoned scrutiny.
The fact that there is one immutable definition of marriage is what gives it legitimacy. You don’t like the millions year old definition, but you have no substitute, that is why it is a tantrum. By not answering my questions in post #54 and#55, it shows me you are not even attempting to think clearly; another sign of a tantrum.

I don’t care if you think this entire civil rights movement is a tantrum or not, so long as the end result is that gays are legally free to marry each other and have the same rights as heterosexuals couples.

So dismiss it if you like. Keep praying. It will only smooth the path for our victory.