Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: MillCreek on June 26, 2017, 09:58:43 AM
-
http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/support-for-gay-marriage-surges-even-among-groups-once-wary/?utm_source=RSS&utm_medium=Referral&utm_campaign=RSS_all
More and more of American society thinks gay marriage is fabulous. Even Republicans.
-
I wonder if it is less "support" and more "don't give a *expletive deleted*it"?
-
http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/support-for-gay-marriage-surges-even-among-groups-once-wary/?utm_source=RSS&utm_medium=Referral&utm_campaign=RSS_all
More and more of American society thinks gay marriage is fabulous. Even Republicans.
"It is easy to lead people into a persuasion, but difficult to hold them in the persuasion, for the nature of man is fickle,"~~Niccolo Machiavelli, THE PRINCE.
-
I'm curious to know what questions were asked. I'm guessing it's more a matter of people not wanting to re-litigate the issue, rather than actually being more in favor of it. As usual, the media confuses the issue of whether people "support" it, or favor it; with the issue of whether they want government to do something about it.
Also, the media is spending more time on other matters, so no one's paying attention to the fact that the aftermath of the SCOTUS decision has resulted in restricting Americans' rights, rather than actually allowing or granting rights to anyone.
-
^^^It looks to be a single question: http://www.people-press.org/2017/06/26/same-sex-marriage-detailed-tables-2017/
http://www.people-press.org/2017/06/26/support-for-same-sex-marriage-grows-even-among-groups-that-had-been-skeptical/
-
Death by a thousand cuts.
This is the natural and expected result of a couple of generations of massive indoctrination by the media and the public education system, combined with a lessening of the influence of mainstream religions on how people think. The Bible still says what it says, but both Roman Catholic and mainstream Protestant churches are closing all around the country because people just aren't going to church any more. The younger generations have been brainwashed to give precedence to various alleged "rights" that aren't defined in the Constitution over the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of freedom of religion and freedom of association.
Lastly, I think even people who still oppose same-sex "marriage" on religious grounds are just tired of hearing about it, and wish it (the discussion) would go away.
-
I wonder if it is less "support" and more "don't give a *expletive deleted*it"?
Kinda where I am. Other than I don't like people telling me I have to bake them a cake*. Bake your own damn cake and leave me the hell alone.
* Including the metaphorical cake. I'd give less of a crap if gays and every other "protected group" was satisfied with equal rights, not superior rights and "gimmes".
-
Looking at the detailed tables, I see that most everyone in my particular demographic is in favor, so I am with the majority:
Male
White
50-64 age
Postgrad education
Over $75K income
Mainline Protestant
West Coast
Married
Independent political affiliation
Baby boomer
-
Looking at the detailed tables, I see that most everyone in my particular demographic is in favor, so I am with the majority:
Male
White
50-64 age
Postgrad education
Over $75K income
Mainline Protestant
Chek ur privlidge
-
So, people are noticing that the sky hasn't fallen once they allowed it?
-
So, people are noticing that the sky hasn't fallen once they allowed it?
They're not noticing that free association rights, private property, religious liberty, etc, have been curtailed, while helping no one. Well, except for the various wedding-focused industries.
-
I'm curious to know what questions were asked. I'm guessing it's more a matter of people not wanting to re-litigate the issue, rather than actually being more in favor of it. As usual, the media confuses the issue of whether people "support" it, or favor it; with the issue of whether they want government to do something about it.
Also, the media is spending more time on other matters, so no one's paying attention to the fact that the aftermath of the SCOTUS decision has resulted in restricting Americans' rights, rather than actually allowing or granting rights to anyone.
This... always this.
For the sake of argument, the percentage of the population that is gay/lesbian is around 3%. That's roughly 9,642,000 out of 321,400,000 people in the U.S.
Now take out of that the percentage of them who actually want to get married. And consider that a percentage of those in certain states before the SCOTUS decision already were married. Probably places that already had a higher per-capita gay population, meaning less of them in the states that didn't. And that most of those folks were probably living in a more-or-less "gay common-law marriage" scenario already.
The entire Gay Marriage debate, it really was a Phyrric battle of epic proportions. Both sides did themselves harm. The MSM/Left in it's zeal to normalize homosexuality, and in it's coastal/urban bubble gave a very very false impression, either an overt one or subconscious one, of just how large the gay population of the U.S. is. And that made it a "bigger problem" than it actually is/was, at least in terms of demographics or sheer numbers to those that were in opposition.
And in turn, their opposition made the gay marriage issue into a big club for the Left in the greater Culture War, and for the social/religious Right, they lost a major war, instead of conceding on what could have been a small skirmish. And arguably, they lost those freedom of/freedom from association rights in the process because it became such a contentious all or nothing battle.
The whole thing was just another example of how people are artificially drawn into the political Left/Right dichotomy, and are all tricked into ignoring the other equally important Authoritarian/Libertarian one.
How the MSM leads us ALL around by the nose, even those of us who nominally think they dislike/distrust the MSM via emphasis of frequency in reporting and presentation is arguably a much much bigger issue than Gay Marriage ever was.
-
And in turn, their opposition made the gay marriage issue into a big club for the Left in the greater Culture War, and for the social/religious Right, they lost a major war, instead of conceding on what could have been a small skirmish. And arguably, they lost those freedom of/freedom from association rights in the process because it became such a contentious all or nothing battle.
The whole thing was just another example of how people are artificially drawn into the political Left/Right dichotomy, and are all tricked into ignoring the other equally important Authoritarian/Libertarian one.
How the MSM leads us ALL around by the nose, even those of us who nominally think they dislike/distrust the MSM via emphasis of frequency in reporting and presentation is arguably a much much bigger issue than Gay Marriage ever was.
Right. If they'd have just surrendered earlier, we wouldn't have demanded further concessions!...
That fits perfectly with the left's normal operating principle. Just like on gun rights, no? If we'd just give them this LITTLE THING, that's all they want. Just a reasonable restriction. They won't come back next year and demand the rest of the stuff they want. Not the left. Nope.
-
Right. If they'd have just surrendered earlier, we wouldn't have demanded further concessions!...
That fits perfectly with the left's normal operating principle. Just like on gun rights, no? If we'd just give them this LITTLE THING, that's all they want. Just a reasonable restriction. They won't come back next year and demand the rest of the stuff they want. Not the left. Nope.
No, I was pointing out the exact opposite.
What we have NOW is the typical Leftist "Compromise". "We got what we want, you get nothing. Be glad we didn't take more..." We have gay marriage, and no freedom of/from association, and by court case or law, the conservative Christian bakers have to make the gay wedding cake.
I'm arguing what we COULD have had was an actual compromise. They got the gay marriage, and we would have gotten the freedom of/from association and the conservative Christian bakers can't be forced or sued for not wanting to make the gay wedding cake.
Or... God forbid, a majority of this country actually stands up and attacks a social issue from the libertarian standpoint for once, and both gays and the religious Right attacked the notion that the government has any say in who can or can't get married through the issuance of a license for their own considered reasons. And then nobody has "marriage" to use as a club in the wider culture war.
-
Or... God forbid, a majority of this country actually stands up and attacks a social issue from the libertarian standpoint for once, and both gays and the religious Right attacked the notion that the government has any say in who can or can't get married through the issuance of a license for their own considered reasons. And then nobody has "marriage" to use as a club in the wider culture war.
Word.
-
From Hawkmoon:
This is the natural and expected result of a couple of generations of massive indoctrination by the media and the public education system, combined with a lessening of the influence of mainstream religions on how people think.
Counterbalance: As opposed to the two to five millenia of indoctrination by the religious institutions?
Me, personally? I don't think it's any of my business what kind of relationship two people have, as long as they don't bug me about it. And I was never sure it was anybody else's business, either.
AJ Dual remarked,
Both sides did themselves harm. The MSM/Left in its zeal to normalize homosexuality, and in its coastal/urban bubble gave a very very false impression, either an overt one or subconscious one, of just how large the gay population of the U.S. is. And that made it a "bigger problem" than it actually is/was, at least in terms of demographics or sheer numbers to those that were in opposition.
Ayup. The zeal is the deal. On both sides.
Terry
-
Counterbalance: As opposed to the two to five millenia of indoctrination by the religious institutions?
Me, personally? I don't think it's any of my business what kind of relationship two people have, as long as they don't bug me about it. And I was never sure it was anybody else's business, either.
That's where freedom of religion comes into play. You can call it "millenia [sic] of indoctrination by the religious institutions," but [most of those] those who believe in the Bible (Episcopalians excepted) don't need any "indoctrination." We can just open the book and read what it says.
I also don't care what kind of of relationship two people have. I DO care when they try to claim that a "union" between two people of the same sex is a marriage. And I DO care when they try to force people who DON'T believe it's a marriage to bake their effing cake.
-
"The zeal is the deal." That concept kind of makes me wonder why Millcreek brought up this subject in the first place. :laugh:
OK: "Milennia." =D
On everything else, I'm right. <Joke, friend. Joke. Joke. Get it?
Terry
-
That's where freedom of religion comes into play. You can call it "millenia [sic] of indoctrination by the religious institutions," but [most of those] those who believe in the Bible (Episcopalians excepted) don't need any "indoctrination." We can just open the book and read what it says.
I also don't care what kind of of relationship two people have. I DO care when they try to claim that a "union" between two people of the same sex is a marriage. And I DO care when they try to force people who DON'T believe it's a marriage to bake their effing cake.
And if we can agree that you shouldn't have to bake their cake?
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
-
Counterbalance: As opposed to the two to five millenia of indoctrination by the religious institutions?
That's not counterbalance; that's counter-logic. "The religious institutions" somehow communicated with each other for 5000 years, and agreed to all teach that marriage was heterosexual? That's conspiracy-mongering.
How about people just accept that marriage is heterosexual because it makes sense for it to be?
-
I DO care when they try to claim that a "union" between two people of the same sex is a marriage.
I never quite figured out why that is in any way important. If a union of two drunk people in Las Vegas that lasts an hour and a half is a marriage, pretty much anything else can be a marriage.
And I DO care when they try to force people who DON'T believe it's a marriage to bake their effing cake.
I can see the point of allowing a choice.
On the other hand, I think making a choice to not bake that cake is stupid. Selling a cake to a couple of guys who are going to marry each other no more constitutes approval of what they do with it than selling a jar to some artsy type constitutes approval of Piss Christ.
-
And if we can agree that you shouldn't have to bake their cake?
Not sure. You still want me to call it a "marriage" even if I don't have to bake the cake? Sorry, no can do.
I've mentioned in previous discussions on this topic that I'm a justice of the peace. Four and half years ago, when I was sworn in for a new term, the instructions from the secretary of the state were that JPs who objected to marrying same-sex couples on moral/religious grounds could decline. Six months ago, when I was sworn in for the current term, the word from on high (consistent with the legal precedent established by that county clerk who refused to issue a marriage license) was that we may NOT decline to marry same-sex couples for moral/religious reasons.
My JP status is less important to me than my faith. So far, I have not been asked, so I haven't had to make a choice. Should the situation arise, I will have to resign my commission.
-
My point being you shouldn't have to bake their cake, heck you can refuse to call it marriage. But at the same time I gave up caring long ago about them actually getting married. Now I don't like it came from a court ruling, and I'd rather just see government out of marriage, but I couldn't care less about two folks getting married regardless of their orientation. Hell, I'm still trying to figure out why it it's limited to two people.
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
-
I'm still trying to figure out why it it's limited to two people.
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
It may not be for long.
-
It may not be for long.
Nor do I understand the rationalization for it not being so.
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
-
Nor do I understand the rationalization for it not being so.
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
My guess would be that polygamy is too closely associated with the dreaded patriarchy for the Left to get too terribly excited about.
Then again, cognitive dissonance doesn't really bother them all that much.
-
From Hawkmoon: (System-deleted quote)
Counterbalance: As opposed to the two to five millenia of indoctrination by the religious institutions?
Me, personally? I don't think it's any of my business what kind of relationship two people have, as long as they don't bug me about it. And I was never sure it was anybody else's business, either.
AJ Dual remarked, (System-deleted quote)
Ayup. The zeal is the deal. On both sides.
Terry
That's not counterbalance; that's counter-logic. "The religious institutions" somehow communicated with each other for 5000 years, and agreed to all teach that marriage was heterosexual? That's conspiracy-mongering.
How about people just accept that marriage is heterosexual because it makes sense for it to be?
Oh, thanks for re-directing my thinking which was developed over time and research.
I thought the parallels were because religious systems all independently discovered just about the same human hot-buttons, reward systems, control devices (e.g., sex and food), punishment and forgiveness schemes, and apologetics mechanisms. Although they often borrowed freely from each other on details anyhow.
So I guess I'm not just a conspiracy theorist on that one and I slightly resent that remark.
However, I forgive you.
fistful, I don't want to argue with you on this. The last time around I found we were simply arguing from different premises which were irreconcilable --you from Biblical and emotional sources which I regard as irrelevant, me from the Missourian outlook of "show me."
As I said, like others, I simply do not see why marriage, heterosexual or multiple or whatever, is any of the federal government's business except for legal reasons of contracting where appropriate, i.e. tax-wise, government health plans, etc.
I did my work on it. You did your work on it.
And as much as I hate the phrase, we must agree to disagree.
With, however, high respect,
Terry
-
The last time around I found we were simply arguing from different premises which were irreconcilable --you from Biblical and emotional sources
:facepalm: That is false. I don't recall using the Bible to explain why marriage has been uniformly heterosexual in human history, or using it to argue that same-sex unions shouldn't be legally recognized.
As far as emotion is concerned, that is your own interpretation of my comments, and not really a charitable one.
-
:facepalm: That is false. I don't recall using the Bible to explain why marriage has been uniformly heterosexual in human history, or using it to argue that same-sex unions shouldn't be legally recognized.
Yes, but, you see, even though you don't use it as reasons in your arguments and never reference it in the logical explanation for your beliefs, they KNOW it's all because of Jesus.
See, your arguments don't matter. All that matters is your motivation, or, that is, the motivation they are CERTAIN you have.
It's cause you believe in your skygod and think he's going to rain hellfire and brimstone down on the country if we allow teh gayzors to marry. What you say is irrelevant.
-
Germany legalized same-sex marriage today.
-
Yes, but, you see, even though you don't use it as reasons in your arguments and never reference it in the logical explanation for your beliefs, they KNOW it's all because of Jesus.
See, your arguments don't matter. All that matters is your motivation, or, that is, the motivation they are CERTAIN you have.
It's cause you believe in your skygod and think he's going to rain hellfire and brimstone down on the country if we allow teh gayzors to marry. What you say is irrelevant.
This is exactly what happens when one makes a non-religious case against whatever sex/sexuality/gender-related leftism is in question. Much of what one says is ignored, and instead one is asked to explain, account for, apologize for whatever religious/Biblical argument has been, or could be made for one's position.
-
I don't recall using the Bible to explain why marriage has been uniformly heterosexual in human history...
Uniform? You might want to pick a different adjective. Marriage has not been 100% heterosexual over the course of human history. You'll generally find homosexual marriages in some way shape or form at any point in recorded history. Well, that or people killing others for being homosexual. When you have the later the former is a bit impossible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions
-
Uniform? You might want to pick a different adjective. Marriage has not been 100% heterosexual over the course of human history. You'll generally find homosexual marriages in some way shape or form at any point in recorded history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions
No, "uniform" will do. I didn't say that no same-sex marriage had ever, ever been recognized, until Obama ruined America. Had I wanted to say that marriage was 100.000000% heterosexual at all places and times until the hippies took it over, I could very well have said as much. I didn't. That's not the point.*
The point, if one bothers to consider the context, is that the uniform heterosexuality of marriage cannot have been a matter of an evil religious patriarchy repressing the homo's. To propose this, as some like to do, is to suggest that Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, the Buddha, the Dalai Lama, Zoroaster, Confucius, Akhenaten, Joseph Smith, Mary Baker Eddy, Wallace D. Fard Muhammad, and L. Ron Hubbard got together to craft a conspiracy against the homosek-shals. Or that their various followers maintained such a conspiracy for thousands of years of human history, over wide swaths of the globe.
It's just silly. Marriage is heterosexual, because marriage suggests itself for heterosexual pairings. Homosexuality (whether good, bad, or indifferent) does not make society sit up say, "We'd better encourage that fine, young couple to stay together. Think of what trouble we'd be in if all the LGBTQIA+%$&^ community split up with their partners!"
Well, that or people killing others for being homosexual. When you have the later the former is a bit impossible.
Are you trying to use the fact that people considered homosexuality a capital offense as evidence that it was also considered to be grounds for holy matrimony? =)
*Also, if you look a little more closely at that Wikipedia article, it doesn't say that every example of a "union" that it gives was actually considered a marriage.
-
No, "uniform" will do. I didn't say that no same-sex marriage had ever, ever been recognized, until Obama ruined America. Had I wanted to say that marriage was 100.000000% heterosexual at all places and times until the hippies took it over, I could very well have said as much. I didn't. That's not the point.*
You might want to revisit your definition of uniform then.
The point, if one bothers to consider the context, is that the uniform heterosexuality of marriage cannot have been a matter of an evil religious patriarchy repressing the homo's. To propose this, as some like to do, is to suggest that Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, the Buddha, the Dalai Lama, Zoroaster, Confucius, Akhenaten, Joseph Smith, Mary Baker Eddy, Wallace D. Fard Muhammad, and L. Ron Hubbard got together to craft a conspiracy against the homosek-shals. Or that their various followers maintained such a conspiracy for thousands of years of human history, over wide swaths of the globe.
It would be silly to promote such a conspiracy especially because homosexual marriage and/or relationships have been accepted in belief systems descended from some of those religious leaders.
It's just silly. Marriage is heterosexual, because marriage suggests itself for heterosexual pairings.
Er, no, it doesn't. Heterosexual single partner pairings work well to keep the human species alive but it is not the only positive route to human pairing. Marriage is generally (not uniformly) heterosexual because that's generally how people work.
-
I wonder if it is less "support" and more "don't give a *expletive deleted*it"?
Pretty much this. I mean, I debate just about everything, but I originally opposed gay marriage, then eventually moved to a position of , as you say, not giving a *expletive deleted*it.
Mostly because of people acting poorly around gay people who just wanted to live their lives.
I'm not worried about a business refusing to provide a wedding cake to a gay couple. I get irked at things like a hospital ignoring a medical power of attorney held by the healthier partner in a gay couple, allowing the estranged parents to take over medical decisions and deny the partner visitation rights.
Sure, the gay guy eventually won the lawsuit, but by then his partner was dead. Which would you prefer, being with your loved one as he passes, or some money a couple years down the road?
For the sake of argument, the percentage of the population that is gay/lesbian is around 3%. That's roughly 9,642,000 out of 321,400,000 people in the U.S.
Should we use this excuse to deny Native Americans the right to marry? They're only 1% of the population... Governments need to be able to deal with edge cases, unlikely events, etc...
That's where freedom of religion comes into play. You can call it "millenia [sic] of indoctrination by the religious institutions," but [most of those] those who believe in the Bible (Episcopalians excepted) don't need any "indoctrination." We can just open the book and read what it says.
Statistically speaking, from what I've read those that shout the loudest tend to be the ones who crack the book open the least.
How about people just accept that marriage is heterosexual because it makes sense for it to be?
Lots of varieties of marriage out there if you go looking world-wide.
On the other hand, I think making a choice to not bake that cake is stupid. Selling a cake to a couple of guys who are going to marry each other no more constitutes approval of what they do with it than selling a jar to some artsy type constitutes approval of Piss Christ.
I take this view as well, but I acknowledge that, especially in the wedding industry, you have a surprising number of people who view it as a religious calling to help people celebrate their matrimony and such. And since they're mixing their religion into it...
My JP status is less important to me than my faith. So far, I have not been asked, so I haven't had to make a choice. Should the situation arise, I will have to resign my commission.
Why? As a Justice of the Peace, you are acting to fulfill the government's role in various ways. This means that you are NOT to inject your personal beliefs into it, especially not religion. Separation of Church and State, remember?
You marry two people, you're doing it under the government's rules, not religious rules.
So, yeah, if you feel that strongly about it, resign, but consider - are you really doing anybody any good by refusing?
Part of the problem with the clerk in Kentucky was that she was refusing to let any of her clerks do the gay marriage certificates. The net result being that the office itself couldn't fulfill its functions. That's a problem.
It's just silly. Marriage is heterosexual, because marriage suggests itself for heterosexual pairings. Homosexuality (whether good, bad, or indifferent) does not make society sit up say, "We'd better encourage that fine, young couple to stay together. Think of what trouble we'd be in if all the LGBTQIA+%$&^ community split up with their partners!"
Then do you support polygamous marriages as well? Lots of history for them. Do you disapprove of mixed-race marriages? Lots of opposition to those in relatively recent history.
Just because one type of pairing is predominant doesn't mean that less common types need to be banned, unless you can describe the harm in doing so, and said harm is extreme enough to justify the restriction.
If the gays want to formalize their relationship and gain the benefits that the government version of 'marriage' is*, why shouldn't they?
* Basically, a legal marriage involves a large number of automatic contracts, powers of attorney, inheritance rules, and numerous other legal quirks that would cost thousands separately, but costs about $35 when done as a marriage license.
-
If the gays want to formalize their relationship and gain the benefits that the government version of 'marriage' is*, why shouldn't they?
* Basically, a legal marriage involves a large number of automatic contracts, powers of attorney, inheritance rules, and numerous other legal quirks that would cost thousands separately, but costs about $35 when done as a marriage license.
Don't forget a few that cannot be gained by any contract. For example, avoiding being compelled to testify against your partner.
-
Then do you support polygamous marriages as well? Lots of history for them.
Do I support them? Legally, or morally? They've obviously much more claim to being actual marriages than exclusionary, one-sex-only, homosexual unions. You can't justify same-sex "marriages" by saying, "but mah poligamey!" That's like justifying a 100% tax on birthday presents by invoking the poll tax.
Do you disapprove of mixed-race marriages? Lots of opposition to those in relatively recent history.
So my appeal to the broad sweep of world history is supposed to make me sympathetic to a narrow-minded, racial-purity view of marriage? Explain how you reached that conclusion.
In actuality, the Left has claimed (when it suits them) that marriage is defined by "society's needs," which would be a pretty handy basis for anyone who wants to nix mixed marriages. Of course, it also destroys any notion of a right to marriage...
Just because one type of pairing is predominant doesn't mean that less common types need to be banned, unless you can describe the harm in doing so, and said harm is extreme enough to justify the restriction.
Misunderstanding one: Opposite sex pairings aren't just "predominant." They are the reason why marriage developed in the first place. (If you take a secular view, at least.) As I've pointed out over and over again, homosexual pairings don't affect society in any way that encourages us to recognize them one way or the other. Why do you want the government to get involved in the private lives of two homosexuals?
Misunderstanding two: I'm not the one who wanted government to get involved. I wanted government to stay out of homosexual relationships. It's called "libertarianism."
If the gays want to formalize their relationship and gain the benefits that the government version of 'marriage' is*, why shouldn't they?
Seems obvious - because marriage always includes both sexes. If you exclude one of the sexes, then you don't meet the requirements.
And marriage is not about people deciding to get "benefits," anyway. Two homosexuals want benefits for no particular reason? The libertarian response is, "Meh, no thanks. Have a nice life."
-
So then would you support the libertarian answer of getting government out of marriage entirely? Because sure, I can get behind that. Id much prefer it actually.
But I've also come to the view that as long as government is going to rubber stamp relationships and grant certain advantages it shouldn't merely do so for the types it approves of and leave everyone else hanging in the breeze with no access to the same.
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
-
Quote from: Hawkmoon
My JP status is less important to me than my faith. So far, I have not been asked, so I haven't had to make a choice. Should the situation arise, I will have to resign my commission.
Why? As a Justice of the Peace, you are acting to fulfill the government's role in various ways. This means that you are NOT to inject your personal beliefs into it, especially not religion. Separation of Church and State, remember?
You marry two people, you're doing it under the government's rules, not religious rules.
Yes, I do remember. That's why if the situation arises I will have to resign my commission.
So, yeah, if you feel that strongly about it, resign, but consider - are you really doing anybody any good by refusing?
Yes, I am. I would be able to look myself in the mirror and know that I didn't surrender my morality to the tyranny of the masses. I see that as a good thing.
Part of the problem with the clerk in Kentucky was that she was refusing to let any of her clerks do the gay marriage certificates. The net result being that the office itself couldn't fulfill its functions. That's a problem.
I agree. She was wrong. She went beyond following her conscience, and attempted to impose her religious views on the civil system. That wasn't "part of" the problem with that clerk. That WAS the problem with that clerk.
If the gays want to formalize their relationship and gain the benefits that the government version of 'marriage' is*, why shouldn't they?
* Basically, a legal marriage involves a large number of automatic contracts, powers of attorney, inheritance rules, and numerous other legal quirks that would cost thousands separately, but costs about $35 when done as a marriage license.
Gay people have had the right to enjoy all the legal benefits of the "governmental version of 'marriage' " in most, if not all, states for a long time. It's called "civil union." Civil unions convey ALL the legal benefits of marriage. But that wasn't good enough for them ... they insist on being allowed to call it a "marriage." That's where I -- and many others -- have a problem.
-
So then would you support the libertarian answer of getting government out of marriage entirely? Because sure, I can get behind that. Id much prefer it actually.
But I've also come to the view that as long as government is going to rubber stamp relationships and grant certain advantages it shouldn't merely do so for the types it approves of and leave everyone else hanging in the breeze with no access to the same.
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
I suppose it's my single guy bias showing, and I might get flamed, but not only would I like to see the gov get out of the marriage licensing business, but I would also like them to get out of the "married and married with children get special tax and other benefits" business. That in itself would about quash much of the "gay marriage" debate since a major part of that seems to be related to getting the same spousal and other family benefits that hetro married people and families get. Again, it's my own bias, but I just don't see why people should get extra tax breaks for either being married or having kids. These are choices people make. I'm not sure how they relate to said people getting to pay less taxes than a single person, all other things being equal.
Private businesses can then either pay or not pay for things like health insurance for whoever they want to, or don't want to cover.
-
I suppose it's my single guy bias showing, and I might get flamed, but not only would I like to see the gov get out of the marriage licensing business, but I would also like them to get out of the "married and married with children get special tax and other benefits" business. That in itself would about quash much of the "gay marriage" debate since a major part of that seems to be related to getting the same spousal and other family benefits that hetro married people and families get. Again, it's my own bias, but I just don't see why people should get extra tax breaks for either being married or having kids. These are choices people make. I'm not sure how they relate to said people getting to pay less taxes than a single person, all other things being equal.
Private businesses can then either pay or not pay for things like health insurance for whoever they want to, or don't want to cover.
I for one agree entirely with that. If you get rid of the incentives and marriage licensing all together than there's no need to have the debates on who can and can't legally get married.
My main change on the issue is simply that, as long as the government is going to legally recognize/license marriages they should be doing so for all consenting adults that wish to be married regardless of other factors.
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
-
If you get rid of the incentives and marriage licensing all together than there's no need to have the debates on who can and can't legally get married.
The argument is that civil society incentivizes a man and a woman getting married and (hopefully) raising children because continued additions to society from stable homes results in benefits to the society. Additionally, just having stable homes and families in society is good for that society in a number of ways. That argument is not completely without merit.
The question is whether a gay "marriage" can provide the same kind of benefits to society and is worth the same incentives. That question is still, as far as I know, an open one.
-
Tom Payne's intro to Common Sense has an explanation for the OP: "Time makes more converts than Reason." When you can't make a rational case for something, you just get it through the courts, and then people go along with it.
-
So then would you support the libertarian answer of getting government out of marriage entirely? Because sure, I can get behind that. Id much prefer it actually.
But I've also come to the view that as long as government is going to rubber stamp relationships and grant certain advantages it shouldn't merely do so for the types it approves of and leave everyone else hanging in the breeze with no access to the same.
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
On the first part, the notion of deregulating marriage is not unreasonable, and should be given its day in court. While I can see the appeal of deregulation, it would seem that government still has a place in at least recognizing marriages just for the sake of legally establishing family relationships, for purposes of inheritances, the custody of children, etc. Plus, look at Firethorn's list of all the things legal marriage takes care of - thousands of dollars in legal fees taken care of with a simple, inexpensive marriage license. Why mess with that?
Which brings us to your second point. When government recognizes certain things, or licenses certain things, it necessarily leaves "everyone else hanging in the breeze." Those who haven't passed the bar exam don't get a law license, for example. When it comes to marriage, it is (or certainly should be) obvious that people with no intention of playing house with a member of the opposite sex have put themselves "in the breeze." Marriage is, to restate the obvious for the thousandth time, for those who pair up with the opposite sex. If two people of the same sex want those thousands of dollars worth of legal details, then let them pay their thousands of dollars. Society at large has no legitimate interest in treating them like a married couple.
-
Tom Payne's intro to Common Sense has an explanation for the OP: "Time makes more converts than Reason." When you can't make a rational case for something, you just get it through the courts, and then people go along with it.
Somehow that's not exactly what I think Mr. Payne had in mind.
-
On the first part, the notion of deregulating marriage is not unreasonable, and should be given its day in court. While I can see the appeal of deregulation, it would seem that government still has a place in at least recognizing marriages just for the sake of legally establishing family relationships, for purposes of inheritances, the custody of children, etc. Plus, look at Firethorn's list of all the things legal marriage takes care of - thousands of dollars in legal fees taken care of with a simple, inexpensive marriage license. Why mess with that?
Which brings us to your second point. When government recognizes certain things, or licenses certain things, it necessarily leaves "everyone else hanging in the breeze." Those who haven't passed the bar exam don't get a law license, for example. When it comes to marriage, it is (or certainly should be) obvious that people with no intention of playing house with a member of the opposite sex have put themselves "in the breeze." Marriage is, to restate the obvious for the thousandth time, for those who pair up with the opposite sex. If two people of the same sex want those thousands of dollars worth of legal details, then let them pay their thousands of dollars. Society at large has no legitimate interest in treating them like a married couple.
And I'm still waiting for a reasonable explanation of why the government shouldn't be recognizing consenting adults who wish to be married.
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
-
And I'm still waiting for a reasonable explanation of why the government shouldn't be recognizing consenting adults who wish to be married.
Anyone who wishes to be married gets together with someone of the opposite sex. Was the government not marrying opp.-sex couples?
-
Anyone who wishes to be married gets together with someone of the opposite sex. Was the government not marrying opp.-sex couples?
Yes, they were. The issue at hand is for what legitimate reason we're they denying the same to others who are perfectly capable of consenting and are married for all intents and purposes OTHER than the government saying nope.
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
-
Which opposite-sex couples was the government refusing to marry? Are we going back to the racial thing again?
-
Gay people have had the right to enjoy all the legal benefits of the "governmental version of 'marriage' " in most, if not all, states for a long time. It's called "civil union." Civil unions convey ALL the legal benefits of marriage.
That is not at all true. Civil unions are only available in Illinois, New Jersey, Hawaii, and Colorado. Vermont used to recognize them. None were ever recognized nationally.
Which means that the example I specifically mentioned, not being compelled to testify against a spouse, would not apply in federal trials, or in any of the other states.
My main change on the issue is simply that, as long as the government is going to legally recognize/license marriages they should be doing so for all consenting adults that wish to be married regardless of other factors.
That's it in a nutshell.
The argument is that civil society incentivizes a man and a woman getting married and (hopefully) raising children because continued additions to society from stable homes results in benefits to the society.
If children were the goal of the marriage, we would have fertility tests and would deny marriage to people who are sterile and beyond child-bearing age. What is the difference to the state between them and the gays?
Society at large has no legitimate interest in treating them like a married couple.
What legitimate reasons does it have to treat anyone that way? You mentioned legally establishing family relationships, for purposes of inheritances, the custody of children - these are all things that gays have the exact same need for as a heterosexual couple with no reproductive ability. Is there something else?
-
What legitimate reasons does it have to treat anyone that way? You mentioned legally establishing family relationships, for purposes of inheritances, the custody of children - these are all things that gays have the exact same need for as a heterosexual couple with no reproductive ability. Is there something else?
No, they don't have the "exact same need," because an opposite-sex couple and a same-sex couple are not the same. The law used to be reasonable, and recognize this, back when we cared about things like facts, science, etc.
For one thing, there's always a chance that a "heterosexual couple with no reproductive ability" will conceive. As unlikely as it may be, it happens.
For another thing, it's not practical for marriage laws to discriminate against opposite-sex couples that "can't" reproduce. Partly because of what I just said, and partly because it would (at least in a vast number of cases) require testing (and I presume that's rather expensive and/or time-consuming). People about to get married don't always know whether or not they have fertility issues. I mean, well, some of them may even be virgins. As unlikely as it may be, it happens.
For another, other thing, the law does have an interest in making sure that parents are accountable for their own children. Not the stand-in, two-mommies kind of parents, but actual, biological parents.
-
You do realize there are ways of getting children and raising a family besides spawning one, right?
-
You do realize there are ways of getting children and raising a family besides spawning one, right?
Yep. And forcing private, Christian adoption agencies to place babies with gay couples is part of the aim in all of this.
-
Yep. And forcing private, Christian adoption agencies to place babies with gay couples is part of the aim in all of this.
Correct.
My late wife and I adopted her eldest granddaughter. The process took about four years, and was completed in December of 2010. Our adoption services agency was Catholic Charities (formerly Catholic Family Services). Over the course of the multi-year process (which was unusually complicated because the kid was in a South American country, the U.S. did not recognize any adoption services providers from that country, and that country didn't recognize any adoption services providers from the U.S. -- which meant that we proceeded under a Hague Convention for international adoptions, and I got to do the majority of the legwork myself), we became very friendly with the adoption social worker assigned to our case. Because things dragged on so long, one of the documents that Catholic Charities prepared early on actually expired before the process was finished. By that time, the entire Roman Catholic diocese in which we were located had gotten out of the adoption business because it was too much red tape and too much governmental interference. Our social worker prepared an updated document, but they had to find a cooperating office of Catholic Charities in another diocese that hadn't let their accreditation expire yet to countersign the document so we could submit it.
But, hey -- "It's for the children," right?
-
No, they don't have the "exact same need," because an opposite-sex couple and a same-sex couple are not the same. The law used to be reasonable, and recognize this, back when we cared about things like facts, science, etc.
For one thing, there's always a chance that a "heterosexual couple with no reproductive ability" will conceive. As unlikely as it may be, it happens.
For another thing, it's not practical for marriage laws to discriminate against opposite-sex couples that "can't" reproduce. Partly because of what I just said, and partly because it would (at least in a vast number of cases) require testing (and I presume that's rather expensive and/or time-consuming). People about to get married don't always know whether or not they have fertility issues. I mean, well, some of them may even be virgins. As unlikely as it may be, it happens.
For another, other thing, the law does have an interest in making sure that parents are accountable for their own children. Not the stand-in, two-mommies kind of parents, but actual, biological parents.
Please tell me where in the statutes it shows that a marriage is for the process of having children, that children born in wedlock have any special rights, etc. It deals with a whole host of things but of all of them children out of wedlock is probably the least difficult to deal with and has the most legal stuff hashed out with family courts and such. And as stated, if that were the case what's the point of allowing sterile people to get married? "Maybe" "long shot" "not practical" to know really doesn't cut it with a whole host of things.
For everything but children the needs of a same sex couple are exactly the same in regards to the benefits that come with a marriage license.
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
-
You do realize there are ways of getting children and raising a family besides spawning one, right?
OK, sure. You realize that a homosexual relationship is not one of the ways to get children, right? You realize that if it somehow were one of the ways, it would not be in society's interest (and certainly not in children's interests) to promote or encourage or support it, right?
-
Yep. And forcing private, Christian adoption agencies to place babies with gay couples is part of the aim in all of this.
That begs the question: Are the kids Catholic? Or are they spending extra years in an Orphanage being indoctrinated because of the religious beliefs of the staff?
Look, I get it, it's a flusterlcuck. I know a bunch of you are strongly against Gay Marriage. The civil, legal basis for having government involved in marriages at all was to promote stable families in society. Sure there was some civil/religious bleed over (in both directions) but that was, pretty clearly, the basis for marriage in Western Law: To use the power of the government to encourage stable families.
The government decided it wanted to encourage stable homosexual families as well. So they are.
There will be some useful things (like the aforementioned medical decision maker story not happening again), and some crappy things (like wedding oriented businesses loosing more freedom of association*). It remains to be seen if stable homosexual families comport the same, different, or no benefits to society that caused government involvement in the first place. It's just me, but I think, long term, this will slow some of the breakdown of the American Family that is so often decried. More people in committed, long-term relationships I think will be a good thing. There should be an up tic in kids getting adopted as well, as the percentage of new marriages that are biologically infertile just went up. Kids out of orphanages and into stable homes is also a good thing.
*Realistically, that's more indicative of real problems in our business and public accommodations laws than our marriage laws. We really shouldn't have let that particular camel under the tent wall.
-
OK, sure. You realize that a homosexual relationship is not one of the ways to get children, right?
Homosexual relationships get children with increasing frequency. Adoption is the most frequent way, although I have heard of surrogates carrying the baby for male gay couples, and female gay couples getting sperm donors (Either from banks, or free range). So a Homosexual relationship absolutely is a way to get a kid.
You realize that if it somehow were one of the ways, it would not be in society's interest (and certainly not in children's interests) to promote or encourage or support it, right?
I know no such thing. I, in fact, know a lesbian couple that adopted one of their foster kids, and it absolutely WAS in that child's best interest. That's an anecdote, not data, and I am aware of that. But there is no intrinsic reason that a stable relationship between two men or two women is a worse place to raise a kid then a stable relationship between a man and a women. And I would posit that a same sex two parent household is better then a single parent household regardless of the single parent's gender.
-
Please tell me where in the statutes it shows that a marriage is for the process of having children...
I think you're confused. I was talking about the fact that societies and legal codes throughout human history have had this strange tendency to associate marriage with opposite-sex couples that got busy with each other; and not just "any two consenting adults who love each other," or "people who want to make a statement about their commitment to each other," or "people who want special benefits for themselves."
that children born in wedlock have any special rights, etc.
Huh? They have the advantage of, ya know, actually being raised by the people who gave them existence. Other than that, what are you talking about? What special rights?
...what's the point of allowing sterile people to get married? "Maybe" "long shot" "not practical" to know really doesn't cut it with a whole host of things.
OK, so which people seeking marriage licenses are sterile? Hmm? Oh, you don't know who is, and who isn't? See how that works?
For everything but children the needs of a same sex couple are exactly the same in regards to the benefits that come with a marriage license.
If humans reproduced asexually, if we just had kids pop out of our bodies every other year, or whatever, do you think marriage would exist? Would it exist all over the world? Why, or why not?
-
Homosexual relationships get children with increasing frequency. Adoption is the most frequent way, although I have heard of surrogates carrying the baby for male gay couples, and female gay couples getting sperm donors (Either from banks, or free range). So a Homosexual relationship absolutely is a way to get a kid.
Did you seriously just say that? Would you like to reconsider?
-
Did you seriously just say that? Would you like to reconsider?
No.
Take adoption for example. Many adoption agencies will not place a child in a single parent household. Many require not just marriage, but a minimum time frame that marriage has to have lasted so as to try and make sure the child is going to a stable home. While there are some agencies that a gay marriage would be a disqualifier, there are others that it would not.
So if one were gay, and wanted a child, a long term homosexual relationship (preferably blessed by the government you live under) would be the way to get that child.
I mean hell, it beats kidnapping.
-
No.
Take adoption for example. Many adoption agencies will not place a child in a single parent household. Many require not just marriage, but a minimum time frame that marriage has to have lasted so as to try and make sure the child is going to a stable home. While there are some agencies that a gay marriage would be a disqualifier, there are others that it would not.
So if one were gay, and wanted a child, a long term homosexual relationship (preferably blessed by the government you live under) would be the way to get that child.
I mean hell, it beats kidnapping.
Nope. The homosexual relationship is still not producing a child. As far as helping to raise the child, are you saying that a homosexual relationship between two adoptive parents is helping the child in some way? Is it better than, say, a brother and sister adopting the child? Or some other, non-sexual partnership?
-
Nope. The homosexual relationship is still not producing a child. As far as helping to raise the child, are you saying that a homosexual relationship between two adoptive parents is helping the child in some way? Is it better than, say, a brother and sister adopting the child? Or some other, non-sexual partnership?
I didn't say "producing" I said "getting". I know you used "reproductive", but I think my take is valid, because our discussion is on why the government might want to extend it's encouragement to these couples and what is being [hopefully] produced is a stable, two parent household for a child that doesn't have one.
I'm not saying it's helping the child (it might, it might not) I'm saying there's nothing intrinsic about a homosexual relationship that is harmful to children, and would require us to keep them away.
This is a hypothetical, but I have to assume most children in orphanages or available through adoption agencies don't have a brother/sister/grandparent/ biological relative able/willing to take them. So that's kinda moot.
There's a lot to unpack on that last one, but a stable homosexual relationship probably IS better then some non-sexual pairing to raise children. Children learn a lot about relationships from watching their parents, and (outside the bedroom) interaction with a sexual partner is one facet of that. I think that child development is complicated enough, and relationships are different enough that'd be pretty hard to control down to that one variable though. It's pretty hard to control down to the homo/hetero variable for development.
-
I think you're confused. I was talking about the fact that societies and legal codes throughout human history have had this strange tendency to associate marriage with opposite-sex couples that got busy with each other; and not just "any two consenting adults who love each other," or "people who want to make a statement about their commitment to each other," or "people who want special benefits for themselves."
You are aware that the framework of marriage, it's benefits, expectations, and requirements has varied greatly through history and cultures right? As have all manner of things we'd no longer find acceptable.
OK, so which people seeking marriage licenses are sterile? Hmm? Oh, you don't know who is, and who isn't? See how that works?
So should a woman whose had a hysterectomy be allowed to get married? How about a guy that had cancer and lost his testicles? You're right, it would be cumbersome but seeing as it's apparently do important and a bedrock of the institution and all. Ok let's compromise, self declaration that to the best of your knowledge you can spawn. What's an acceptable sentence for self perjury in this case? While we're at it shall we decide how long a fertile couple can use birth control?
If humans reproduced asexually, if we just had kids pop out of our bodies every other year, or whatever, do you think marriage would exist? Would it exist all over the world? Why, or why not?
Well seeing as plenty of people get married who have no ability or intention of breeding get married, have a desire to do so, or form life long relationships without getting the rubber stamp...I dunno. Yeah?
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
-
Nope. The homosexual relationship is still not producing a child. As far as helping to raise the child, are you saying that a homosexual relationship between two adoptive parents is helping the child in some way? Is it better than, say, a brother and sister adopting the child? Or some other, non-sexual partnership?
It's "producing" a child in the same capacity as an infertile heterosexual couple would do so. Either through adoption, or through the same sorts of means available to a heterosexual couple with one fertile partner.
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
-
^^^I know a great many gay married couples, all of them women, who had kids via heterosexual intercourse when they were married to men. They came out later in life, divorced the men, kept the kids and remarried women.
-
^^^I know a great many gay married couples, all of them women, who had kids via heterosexual intercourse when they were married to men. They came out later in life, divorced the men, kept the kids and remarried women.
How great that the gay marriage came along, to make it easier for us to separate kids from their parents.
-
How great that the gay marriage came along, to make it easier for us to separate kids from their parents.
Because there's no way said marriages would have ended without gay marriage being legal. And I'm failing to see where they are being separated from their parents. They are still with one parent, and presumably in the same arrangements they'd have if the parents ts divorced and the parents t with primary custody either remarried to a person of the opposite sex or stayed single.
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
-
How great that the gay marriage came along, to make it easier for us to separate kids from their parents.
I see it more as a function of if you have or had a uterus, you usually get primary residential custody of the children, as opposed to the man, in the heterosexual relationship that produced the children.
-
You are aware that the framework of marriage, it's benefits, expectations, and requirements has varied greatly through history and cultures right?
Which makes its virtually-universal heterosexuality that much more striking. Those cultures had very different views about a lot of things, but everyone realized that boring, old both-sexes marriage is foundational to the family, in a way that other relationships are not. And then, you social justice warriors came along, determined to prove that men and women are just interchangeable people units.
This is a hypothetical, but I have to assume most children in orphanages or available through adoption agencies don't have a brother/sister/grandparent/ biological relative able/willing to take them. So that's kinda moot.
I wasn't talking about relatives of the child. I'm talking about two people raising a child that don't have a sexual relationship, but live together. Two adult siblings who live together would be one example of that. There's never been an explanation for why homosexual couples are more deserving of marriage, or marriage benefits, than non-sexual pairings. The question has seldom been asked.
I'm not saying it's helping the child (it might, it might not) I'm saying there's nothing intrinsic about a homosexual relationship that is harmful to children, and would require us to keep them away.
Like every other advocate of same-sex marriage, you're confusing the question of whether government recognizes something with the question of whether it prohibits it. You're claiming that a) homosexual relationships pose no threat to adoptive children, therefore b) the government must recognize that relationship as marriage. You could make the same claim about any other type of relationship, like the sibling housemates mentioned above. So then you have to say this:
...a stable homosexual relationship probably IS better then some non-sexual pairing to raise children. Children learn a lot about relationships from watching their parents, and (outside the bedroom) interaction with a sexual partner is one facet of that.
Not being a sociologist, all I know is that both sides claim that science backs up their view about whether the heterosexual parents (or the biological parents) being involved is critical to the development of the kid. You can speculate your way, if you like. I find it very logical to strongly suspect that (other factors aside) children suffer when both biological parents are not raising them. I find it very logical to strongly suspect that homosexual relationships cannot model a healthy relationship to the opposite (or the same) sex in the same way that a heterosexual relationship can, and often does. And I have no choice but to shape my views on the legal questions surrounding marriage or adoption accordingly.
-
Marriage licences issued by .gov only came into effect after the Civil War as a part of Jim Crow laws to prevent marriage between blacks and whites. So no, it wasn't an attempt on .gov's part to provide for strong families. It was racist (like Gun Laws) in origin. Prior to that marriage was a purely religious event, with each tribe/religion coming up with it's own procedures for both marriage and divorce for eons prior to the present day.
Yet, once .gov got involved, it followed that lawyers would as well. (Go to your local courthouse to see tilecrawlers printing money.) And much like everything else that .gov gets involved in, instead of "strengthening" families, it has only made things worse. Much worse.
Please carry on, and remain civil.
-
For one thing, there's always a chance that a "heterosexual couple with no reproductive ability" will conceive. As unlikely as it may be, it happens.
Please tell me how a woman who has had a hysterectomy, or, better yet, an oophorectomy, can conceive. I await scientific facts.
For another thing, it's not practical for marriage laws to discriminate against opposite-sex couples that "can't" reproduce. Partly because of what I just said, and partly because it would (at least in a vast number of cases) require testing (and I presume that's rather expensive and/or time-consuming). People about to get married don't always know whether or not they have fertility issues. I mean, well, some of them may even be virgins. As unlikely as it may be, it happens.
People who have voluntarily had tubes tied/vas deferens snipped take great pains to know. Even if you don't test, it's fairly easy to weed those folks out. It literally wouldn't cost anything. Yet, there they are, able to marry.
Also, some states do require blood tests to issue a marriage certificate. Seems to not be much of a problem.
For another, other thing, the law does have an interest in making sure that parents are accountable for their own children. Not the stand-in, two-mommies kind of parents, but actual, biological parents.
And what does this have to do with people who are guaranteed to be infertile?
-
Which makes its virtually-universal heterosexuality that much more striking. Those cultures had very different views about a lot of things, but everyone realized that boring, old both-sexes marriage is foundational to the family, in a way that other relationships are not. And then, you social justice warriors came along, determined to prove that men and women are just interchangeable people units.
And in many of those cultures it was perfectly acceptable to have more than one wife, concubines, wink wink nudge nudge mistresses, beat your wife, stone her, not marry those of other religions/races/tribes(though, concubine, mistress, etc might be ok). Etc. It's a pretty long list of things we no longer said we're ok, because we realized they were BS. And it's also a pretty decent list of things that were ok but that aren't (like polygamy or second tier spouses ala concubine). Shall we also bring back second tier offspring being bastards when born out of wedlock? That should be fun in family court and at inheritance time.
I wasn't talking about relatives of the child. I'm talking about two people raising a child that don't have a sexual relationship, but live together. Two adult siblings who live together would be one example of that. There's never been an explanation for why homosexual couples are more deserving of marriage, or marriage benefits, than non-sexual pairings. The question has seldom been asked.
This falls nicely under the marriage should get the hell out of marriage business header.
Like every other advocate of same-sex marriage, you're confusing the question of whether government recognizes something with the question of whether it prohibits it. You're claiming that a) homosexual relationships pose no threat to adoptive children, therefore b) the government must recognize that relationship as marriage. You could make the same claim about any other type of relationship, like the sibling housemates mentioned above. So then you have to say this:
If government is prohibiting a marriage license to a couple just because two folks have two outies or two innies, then they are by definition restricting it. How much further would you like it restricted to fit your world view? Should the government not issue a marriage license when the couple includes a Christian and a Heathen? That'd go both against Christian teaching and the social history you keep cherry picking.
Not being a sociologist, all I know is that both sides claim that science backs up their view about whether the heterosexual parents (or the biological parents) being involved is critical to the development of the kid. You can speculate your way, if you like. I find it very logical to strongly suspect that (other factors aside) children suffer when both biological parents are not raising them. I find it very logical to strongly suspect that homosexual relationships cannot model a healthy relationship to the opposite (or the same) sex in the same way that a heterosexual relationship can, and often does. And I have no choice but to shape my views on the legal questions surrounding marriage or adoption accordingly.
Sure, the best solution is generally to have a child reared by two well adjusted functioning "normal" biological parents. But I'll give the kid raised by two functional well adjusted "normal" gay dudes better odds at life than the one reared by a couple of meth addicts, assuming they make it to adulthood without being pimped out by mommy for her next fix or daddy blowing up half the trailer park with his latest experimental batch of new improved super meth. In which case the odds thing still sorta works, but I digress.
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
-
Gay people have had the right to enjoy all the legal benefits of the "governmental version of 'marriage' " in most, if not all, states for a long time. It's called "civil union." Civil unions convey ALL the legal benefits of marriage. But that wasn't good enough for them ... they insist on being allowed to call it a "marriage." That's where I -- and many others -- have a problem.
Do you happen to have a citation on this? From what I remember, 'civil unions' were tried in like half a dozen states.
searching (http://family.findlaw.com/domestic-partnerships/which-states-have-civil-unions.html) - 4. 13 banned same sex marriages completely.
My libertarian tendencies are more "civil unions for all! If you want to be 'married' find a religious official willing to do it." As long as we're at it, clean up all the contractual stuff that civil marriages mean.
That said, I eventually came to the conclusion that "marriage" is just a title for it. I am not in favor of forcing people to provide services for them, no more than I am for other things. Well, except that I think that a business should be able to fire an employee for not serving them if it's the business's policy, and the government, well, it's controlled via laws and courts. If the law or judge says to do something, you do it. Or, as you say, you quit.
I'm just concerned about your position of "I'll keep the position as long as I'm never asked". If you're ever asked by a gay couple, you might find yourself in some serious trouble, it might be better to do your duty per the laws of the state then resign. Because even though you've never been asked to do so, you're unwilling to do part of the job.
That's like being a soldier until a war comes along, then you're suddenly a pacifist.
Do I support them? Legally, or morally? They've obviously much more claim to being actual marriages than exclusionary, one-sex-only, homosexual unions. You can't justify same-sex "marriages" by saying, "but mah poligamey!" That's like justifying a 100% tax on birthday presents by invoking the poll tax.
It's pointing out that marriage is actually pretty flexible if you look worldwide. LOTS of different forms and customs.
So my appeal to the broad sweep of world history is supposed to make me sympathetic to a narrow-minded, racial-purity view of marriage? Explain how you reached that conclusion.
I'm asking you to identify how your position is, in the end, different from theirs. All you're doing is substituting 'sex' for 'race'.
For one thing, there's always a chance that a "heterosexual couple with no reproductive ability" will conceive. As unlikely as it may be, it happens.
And if they chose not to? Should we automatically divorce couples when the woman hits menopause?
And marriages used to be more about property than children.
Nope. The homosexual relationship is still not producing a child. As far as helping to raise the child, are you saying that a homosexual relationship between two adoptive parents is helping the child in some way? Is it better than, say, a brother and sister adopting the child? Or some other, non-sexual partnership?
As a libertarian, I'm more about you having to prove harm than I have to prove benefit. I will say that a stable homosexual couple is a far better choice than the 'usual' these days of a single mother.
If it's about the benefit of the child, we should take kids away from single parents long before we take them away from the gays.
And I think you're forgetting about lesbians. They manage to have kids just fine. A woman doesn't need to be in a 'stable loving relationship' with a man to have babies. And quite a few didn't marry them first either. Carefully timed 'one night stands' with selected men works well enough, for those that can't or won't go to the sperm bank.
You are aware that the framework of marriage, it's benefits, expectations, and requirements has varied greatly through history and cultures right? As have all manner of things we'd no longer find acceptable.
And we're saying that this is one of them.
Not being a sociologist, all I know is that both sides claim that science backs up their view about whether the heterosexual parents (or the biological parents) being involved is critical to the development of the kid.
All I say is that 2 is better than 1, generally speaking. After that, things like ethnicity(better take the kids away from blacks), income level(poor shouldn't have kids), and outright individual variations in families all outweigh any detectable differences between a gay couple an a straight couple raising kids. Divorce, separation, and such all have a much greater impact.
Like every other advocate of same-sex marriage, you're confusing the question of whether government recognizes something with the question of whether it prohibits it. You're claiming that a) homosexual relationships pose no threat to adoptive children, therefore b) the government must recognize that relationship as marriage. You could make the same claim about any other type of relationship, like the sibling housemates mentioned above. So then you have to say this:
I wouldn't say that. I'd say it's a rebuttal to your argument that marriage is about raising kids, and homosexual couples can't raise kids(properly), ergo they shouldn't be able to get married.
Yet, once .gov got involved, it followed that lawyers would as well. (Go to your local courthouse to see tilecrawlers printing money.) And much like everything else that .gov gets involved in, instead of "strengthening" families, it has only made things worse. Much worse.
Well, yeah, which is why I consider civil marriages to be the most complex set of contracts that you can enter for only about $45 and two to three signatures.
-
If you need to government to sanctify your relationship in order for your chosen god to recognize it, you might consider if your priorities are skewed.
I'd imagine were I to be a religious sort that I'd consider whatever my chosen god and church thought of my relationship to supercede government's sanctioning of it.
-
That's like being a soldier until a war comes along, then you're suddenly a pacifist.
I don't know what the rules are today but, when I was in the Army it was possible to be in uniform and be a pacifist. There were non-combat roles to which such people were assigned.
In my case, the government changed the rules on me. When I was first appointed as a JP I asked specifically about same sex "marriages," and I was assured that I was not required to perform such ceremonies. Those were the terms under which I accepted the commission. Now I'm being told that "technically" I AM required to perform them if asked, but if I don't want to do it I can just say I'm not available. Except that wouldn't be true, so if the situation arises I will resign. If the situation doesn't arise, I see no need to resign.
The JP situation is parallel to the country clerk in that both are civil, not religious, public offices. The difference is that each county only has one county clerk, and that's the only office in that county that can issue marriage licenses. In my state, any JP in the state can perform a marriage in any town or city in the state. The town I live in (where I was appointed) is under 10,000 people, and has something like 50 JPs (20 Democrats, 20 Republicans, and 10 -- or so -- unaffiliated voters). So it's not as though my declining to perform a same sex "marriage" is going to make it impossible for a couple to have their ceremony.
Unlike most JPs in my state, I didn't accept the appointment so I can perform marriages. I accepted it because it authorizes me to perform certain other official acts, such as certifying signatures on documents and taking depositions. I feel no compunction to give that up over a situation that's unlikely to arise.
-
First, I don't think that the government has any business licensing marriage. Wanna give married couples a break on taxes or other rights? Have the marriage recorded after the fact. Not government permission, just recognition after the fact for other purposes, like estates, taxes, property rights, etc.
Second, I was talking with a lawyer friend. Turns out that one of the biggest supporters of this was the divorce lawyer lobby. Why? Gay marriage means gay divorce, and more money for divorce lawyers.
-
If you need to government to sanctify your relationship in order for your chosen god to recognize it, you might consider if your priorities are skewed.
I'd imagine were I to be a religious sort that I'd consider whatever my chosen god and church thought of my relationship to supercede government's sanctioning of it.
This is quite true. Which is why none of us are arguing that these gay people are condemned to hell for their gay marriage.*
We are arguing that it is not in the best interest of society for the government to grant special privileges to an arrangement that is not a marriage, which has had the laws grow up around a different specific relationship.
As has been noted previously, IF encouraging a healthy, biological family is not the purpose of the special privileges afforded marriage, why does the government care that the people in a "marriage" are having sex? (Or "in love") As noted, if it's just about encouraging people to create stable relationships, why can't two siblings "marry"? Why can't a group of people who share a home "marry"?
Removing the pairing of the sexes now means that there is no logical reason for excluding these others.
*(Note, I'm also not saying they AREN'T condemned to hell as I don't know their souls' condition, but as bold, unrepentant sinners, the odds aren't looking in their favor, whatever their unrepented sin is.)
-
Nope. The homosexual relationship is still not producing a child. As far as helping to raise the child, are you saying that a homosexual relationship between two adoptive parents is helping the child in some way? Is it better than, say, a brother and sister adopting the child? Or some other, non-sexual partnership?
It's soon going to be possible to create a child from the genetic material in two eggs. When this starts occurring, which is not hugely different than IVF, does that eliminate one of your objections? Or are all relationships that rely on technical assistance to procreate less valid or invalid?
I swear I'm legitimately asking. As science continues, it opens up many doors and with that comes a lot of social change. We've been dealing with the consequences ever since we began engineering crops and selectively breeding animals for higher yields.
-
If you need to government to sanctify your relationship in order for your chosen god to recognize it, you might consider if your priorities are skewed.
I'd imagine were I to be a religious sort that I'd consider whatever my chosen god and church thought of my relationship to supercede government's sanctioning of it.
Word
-
This is quite true. Which is why none of us are arguing that these gay people are condemned to hell for their gay marriage.*
We are arguing that it is not in the best interest of society for the government to grant special privileges to an arrangement that is not a marriage, which has had the laws grow up around a different specific relationship.
As has been noted previously, IF encouraging a healthy, biological family is not the purpose of the special privileges afforded marriage, why does the government care that the people in a "marriage" are having sex? (Or "in love") As noted, if it's just about encouraging people to create stable relationships, why can't two siblings "marry"? Why can't a group of people who share a home "marry"?
Removing the pairing of the sexes now means that there is no logical reason for excluding these others.
*(Note, I'm also not saying they AREN'T condemned to hell as I don't know their souls' condition, but as bold, unrepentant sinners, the odds aren't looking in their favor, whatever their unrepented sin is.)
Which circles back to there's a lot more benefits afforded a couple by marriage than simply biological children. And considering there's plenty of biological kids born outside of marriage, plenty of childless marriages, and if we're really pushing the notion why in the heck isn't plural marriage allowed it's not exactly a valid one IMO.
-
Which circles back to there's a lot more benefits afforded a couple by marriage than simply biological children. And considering there's plenty of biological kids born outside of marriage, plenty of childless marriages, and if we're really pushing the notion why in the heck isn't plural marriage allowed it's not exactly a valid one IMO.
Let me try this again:
Point one: Marriage is an institution that has grown up in the common law around the specific male/female bonding to form a family for the raising of children.
That's the point you've ignored.
Point Two: IF the purpose is not to create a healthy biological family, what is the reason that the government ought to recognize it?
That's the part you've mangled.
YES, you can get children lots of different ways. ALL of them tend to be less well suited to raising children, which is why the government ought to encourage a stable, two biological parent household.
Again, point two: If that is not the purpose of recognizing and encouraging marriage, then what is the basis?
-
The problem there is that you're acting as if there has been one and only one standard definition of marriage. And there hasn't been.
If we're going to go that route then there's all manner of things traditionally disallowed for marriages that we've tossed out the window as unacceptable. And it also ignores that there are all manner of folks married that don't fit your ultimate meaning for marriage so why allow them to marry? Also if so, why continue to disallow marriages that would take that an extra step and allow for plural marriages?
You also miss the point that government has no business encouraging marriage. If anything, Chris idea of simply registering a marriage is a nice compromise as it still allows for the automatic legal rights to come into play. Though you still run into the same debate of what can and can't be registered as a marriage.
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
-
(1)The problem there is that you're acting as if there has been one and only one standard definition of marriage. And there hasn't been.
(2) If we're going to go that route then there's all manner of things traditionally disallowed for marriages that we've tossed out the window as unacceptable. And it also ignores that there are all manner of folks married that don't fit your ultimate meaning for marriage so why allow them to marry? Also if so, why continue to disallow marriages that would take that an extra step and allow for plural marriages?
(3) You also miss the point that government has no business encouraging marriage. If anything, Chris idea of simply registering a marriage is a nice compromise as it still allows for the automatic legal rights to come into play. Though you still run into the same debate of what can and can't be registered as a marriage.
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
(1) In the English Common Law (of which our country is a part), there has been but one.
(2) Other people who did not fit into the original definition were still encouraged to marry (e.g. infertile couples) because discovering that fact and limiting it was, at first, impossible and now is a significant invasion of privacy. "Are you a female" and "Are you a male" are NOT such invasions. "Are you just two people" is also not an invasion of privacy.
(3) I haven't addressed that because no one seems to seriously consider that as an option. (You might as well be asking me about an anarcho-capitalist system.) Your argument has been gung-ho add gay marriage to the government list.
Now, back to my original question that hasn't been answered: If the purpose of recognizing marriages by the state is not to encourage a stable, biological family, what rationale, that does include homosexual pairings does not include every other possible relationship?
Why are you so gung-ho about gay marriage and not some other relationship that is similarly lacking the "protections" of marriage?
-
1- So what other parts of English common law should we bring back? Cause you realize we've ditched plenty as time has gone on. And marriage customs have changed plenty.
2- So why not have them affirm under oath that to the best of their knowledge they can spawn?
3-No my argument is show me a good reason why A)Government should be involved in what ultimately should be a religious institution and B) give me a good reason for the government to deny the legal benefits of marriage to couples some just happen to find icky. Cause, you know, heaven forbid folks be allowed the same protections if they don't conform to how you think they should live.
Back to your original question I agree, its a pretty damn short list of consenting adult relationships that you can justify not including. Glad we can agree.
And I'm not specifically gung ho on gay marriage. Last I checked it's what happens to be in the thread title though. I am however gun ho on letting people who are for all intents and purposes married, aside from a few details like number of penises or vaginas involved and what's being stuck where if at all or what if anything is spawning out of it, to gain the same legal protections and rights as your favored definition of marriage.
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
-
1- So what other parts of English common law should we bring back? Cause you realize we've ditched plenty as time has gone on. And marriage customs have changed plenty.
What marriage customs have changed? Just curious exactly what you are referring to.
-
What marriage customs have changed? Just curious exactly what you are referring to.
How much was the dowry for your 14 year old wife you had never met and we're only marrying to solidify a political alliance with her father? Luckily she was of the same faith and an acceptable ethnicity, that sure made things easier...she'll figure out the language eventually. I bet the witnessed consummation so it was legal was a bit of a buzz kill though. Good thing she's not to annoying cause you're stuck with her with the whole no divorce thing, but I suppose if she gets mouthy you're well within your rights to whack her till she's nice and docile again.
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
-
As has been noted previously, IF encouraging a healthy, biological family is not the purpose of the special privileges afforded marriage, why does the government care that the people in a "marriage" are having sex? (Or "in love") As noted, if it's just about encouraging people to create stable relationships, why can't two siblings "marry"? Why can't a group of people who share a home "marry"?
Removing the pairing of the sexes now means that there is no logical reason for excluding these others.
Yes. So?
This is one of the things that has been baffling me about this debate. Opponents of gay marriage say "But we will have to allow polygamy" as if it's a bad thing. What's wrong with it? It's traditional, practiced for thousands of years. It's in the Bible.
Siblings... On a personal level, I find it icky. However, the only objective argument against it is potential genetic defects, and given modern state of contraception it's a non-issue. There are lots of things I don't understand (American football, for example). Doesn't mean they need to be banned. Hell, given the amount of actual demonstrable physical damage football does to players, there is a better case for banning it than for not allowing same sex marriage.
SSM proponents are pretty consistent. Your gotchas aren't really gotchas.
-
(https://i.imgflip.com/1s3im5.jpg) (https://imgflip.com/i/1s3im5)via Imgflip Meme Generator (https://imgflip.com/memegenerator)
-
I'd like to thank all of those who keep pointing out the many variations on (opposite-sex) marriage in the past few thousand years. I'm not sure how it makes exclusionary, one-sex-only "marriages" any more reasonable (and neither are any of you), but it's always good to keep things in perspective.
Sure, the best solution is generally to have a child reared by two well adjusted functioning "normal" biological parents. But I'll give the kid raised by two functional well adjusted "normal" gay dudes better odds at life than the one reared by a couple of meth addicts,
See, here's a perfect opportunity for same-sex marriage proponents to apply logical thinking. If being raised by two "'normal' gay dudes" is better than being raised by meth addicts, and if this is reason for government to recognize same-sex marriages, then where is the movement to allow people to get married on the basis, not of a sexual relationship, but on the basis of not being meth-heads?
Or if you want to remove child-rearing (and heterosexuality) from the equation, why has this whole argument been specifically about homosexuals getting married? How about non-sexual couples, like business partners, or family members?
The answer is that this has never been about equal rights. It's about the Left pushing an agenda on sexuality.
-
I do enjoy how you ignore that marriage, like all customs, can does and has changed. I'm sorry it happens to be changing in such a way that hurts your feels.
As to your second point congratulations, you now understand why folk are increasingly finding it silly to disallow marriage to a healthy committed gay couple while allowing a couple meth addicts to get married, or for folks to get married and divorced a few dozen times over the course of their life.
And despite your best efforts to claim marriage is all about popping out dem babies there was nothing preventing a completely celebrate couple of heading to the court house to get married, such as say your business partners example. Provided they had interlocking naughty bits they had no intention of ever using on each other anyway.
It's been about zomg the gayzers because that's the thread title. There's some over lap with other silly restrictions, like polygamy, but homosexual marriage is the one in the thread title.
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
-
I think after 4 pages and many repeated points made, this one is done.
Chris