Support for gay marriage grows amongst former opponents

[Hawkmoon]

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.

[T.O.M.]

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.

[makattak]

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.)

[RevDisk]

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.

[charby]

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

[lupinus]

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.

[makattak]

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?

[lupinus]

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

[makattak]

(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?

[lupinus]

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

[MechAg94]

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. 

[lupinus]

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

[White Horseradish]

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.

[RoadKingLarry]

via Imgflip Meme Generator

[Perd Hapley]

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.

[lupinus]

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

[mtnbkr]

I think after 4 pages and many repeated points made, this one is done.

Chris