 |
| |
|
|
MrFun
|
 |
of Iowa
Nov 2000
time: 23:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Side note:
A 62-year old consultant who is occasionally in our offices stopped me this morning to ask me about the SF thing. We talk politics a lot, and he's more on the conservative end (though not right-wing). He mentioned that a month ago or so he and his wife had a dinner party with several couples their own age where they all discussed the gay marriage issue, and they all agreed that civil unions were ok, but marriage shouldn't be touched.
Well, after seeing the SF marriages taking place, this past weekend he polled everyone in that group, and they all, to a person, had changed their minds and thought it was fine now. He couldn't explain why, but he himself had the same sentiment.
So I wonder if now that it is a fait accomplit in SF, it will have a dramatic impact on public opinion of this kind around the country. I think seeing the images of so many happy couples finally being able to get something for which they had ached for a long time warmed people's hearts. |
 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
notyoueither
|
 |
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
quote:
You'd do well arguing for slavery or apartheid along these lines, at least until your views were in the minority of recognised electors. What then, Ben? Will you accept organised religions being banned when the majority become atheists and are good and tired of religious behaviour that they see as immoral? |
Good point. However, I argue that marriage cannot be a fundamental human right because it requires two people to exercise the right. |
That is not a sound argument. All sorts of fundamental rights require more than the indivdual. Association, expression, etc. And then there is a big one, freedom of Religion, which inherently involves groups of people.
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
To a Christian, recognition of marriage by the state is almost pointless. They care very little, and the state intervention is more for the interests of the state, than it is for the churches. The state wants to rein in the marriages performed by the churches, and to avoid problems like the Mormons, etc.
For this argument, nothing changes in a marriage between a black woman, or a white woman. Race ought to be irrelevant in the context of marriage. |
State recognition of marriages is greatly beneficial for those who get married. It effects taxation, property rights, medical care, estates, and the interests of individuals upon seperation. Not to mention that married couples are preferred in many cases for adoption.
For this argument, nothing changes in a marriage between heteros or homos. Orientation ought to be irrelevant in obtaining the benefits that the state confers to married people.
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
Religious people feel like the victims here. Marriage in our society has always been a religious institution until recently. My guess is that they didn't much like the state muscling in on their ritual and especially now since the state seems to be accepting something that religion explicitly prohibits. |
Which religious people? There are churches who want to welcome gay couples into their congregations and bestow upon them the blessings of the church on their union.
Furthermore, marriage has always been an institution with civil consequences. That is why the state is involved, and that is why the religious convictions of the many or the few should not be involved in the decision of who can be married and who can't be.
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Everyone has a right to vote on this issue, to determine what should be the scope of the state with respect to marriage. To deny this right, is to strip away the authority of the legislature, to be replaced by the tyranny of the courts. |
Those nations which recognise Constitutions as a supreme law strip away some of the authority of the legislature from day 1. It is considered to be the best way of organising our states. It is considered superior for exactly these sorts of issues where mob rule would lead towards destructive ends for the state itself or for disadvantaged citizens of the state.
It is not the courts that are the problem, it is the people who think that their own values should be forced on everyone else. That is the tyranny that the courts should prevent.
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Yes, but obeyed as well. In a democracy, people can change the law through the vote. Resort to deliberate civil disobedience is intollerable. |
Explain that in light of Ghandi, Martin Luther King Jr., or maybe even your own patriots of the 1770's.
Unjust laws should be resisted. That is the moral thing to do.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Aeson
|
 |
orangesoda
Nov 2001
time: 22:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Again, by your own logic, the case for gay marriage is mere personal opinion, so why should the government force people to recognise them, when they oppose the concept? |
You misunderstand my points entirely. Whether or not any individual couple should or should not be married is not my right to decide. It is theirs. You want it to be yours. You think it will be harmful to them, maybe it will be, maybe it won't. No different than a hetero marriage in that regard.
It is not a case for gay marriage, but a case against denying the benefits of marriage based on gender and sexual orientation.
quote:
So, should priests and pastors be forced to bless gay marriages because to recognise them via force does not infringe on their rights? |
No. The state should not be allowed to discriminate based on gender or sexual orientation. Private groups are not the state. Priests and pastors are obviously not employees of the state (at least not in that capacity), and so your argument has no applicability whatsoever to a discussion about what the state should or should not be required to recognize as a marriage.
Again, this is not about forcing people to do what someone else wants, but rather to allow people to do what they will.
quote:
Everyone has a right to vote on this issue, to determine what should be the scope of the state with respect to marriage. To deny this right, is to strip away the authority of the legislature, to be replaced by the tyranny of the courts. |
So if the majority of people wanted to reinstate slavery you would support that?
quote:
Secondly, what right is there to be married? There is none. |
By recognizing marriages, the state is not (or should not be) allowed to discriminate about which marriages it recognizes based on gender or sexual orientation. This is not a right to marriage issue, but a right to freedom from discrimination based on gender and sexual orientation.
quote:
Well, then you must submit to evidence that does show that such marriages would be harmful that does not rely on personal testimony. |
There is no such evidence. Your only 'evidence' offered is about the capability of a same sex couple raising children being less. This is not an argument applicable to marriage, but rather to adoption.
You also offer an argument about lifestyle risk. You fail to realize that allowing gay marriage does not make people gay. Again you are applying an argument (which is stupid in it's own regard) about whether or not people should be gay to the issue of gay marriage.
You are trying to argue against gay marriage by saying you don't agree with gay adoption (or otherwise raising of children) or being gay. You don't offer any evidence as to any harm that would be done by allowing gays the same rights (as defined by the state) as hetero couples enjoy.
quote:
Secondly, we bar things like polygamy, because they can be shown to be harmful to the participants. So your argument that the state has no place to intervene falls flat. The state should intervene, when a wife is confined in her home and beaten. |
I have never once claimed that the state is not allowed to ban or restrict action which is deemed harmful. I have argued that your points as to how gay marriage is harmful is opinion and speculation. (and bigotted opinion and speculation at that)
I have also repeatedly tried to show you how the capability to raise children is an issue regarding allowing a couple to have children (however that may be), not an issue regarding marriage itself.
If I were to drag up some statistic about the correlation between believing in a deity of some sort and terrorism, would that be a valid argument against allowing people to practice their religion?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Aeson
|
|
orangesoda
Nov 2001
time: 22:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
You were the one who said that children do not matter, it is the union. I am merely acceding to your point by arguing that the union cannot be the same. |
It can be treated the same by the state though, given the same advantages regardless of gender and sexual orientation.
quote:
Marriage is a physical union. Would an unconsummated marriage be looked upon as valid, or would it be an anomaly? Marriage is about the union of a man and woman, which until recently, would have resulted in children. |
You fail to recognize the difference between 'can' and 'does'. Not all marriages result in children, or even consummation. How a couple views their marriage is not up to you or I to determine.
Marriage in and of itself is not a sexual union. It may lead to one, it may not. It may strengthen one, it may weaken it. That isn't relevant to the issue at hand. In the context of this thread, marriage is a state recognition of the union of two people.
quote:
No, but the refusal to consummate a marriage can constitute grounds for divorce by the denied partner. |
And this would be no different in a gay marriage.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
asleepathewheel
|
|
listening too long to one song
Mar 2002
time: 00:34
|
|
facists?
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
22-02-2004 02:06
.
|