SF throws down the gauntlet to Cali

[Ben Kenobi]

So hetero couples can't live up to the ideal either. WHy then should a couple which can't live up to the ideal be allowed to marry, but then in another case a couple which can't live up to the ideal be disallowed to marry?

Why don't they live up to the ideal? Human sinfulness.

That's why the real point still rests in given the perfect homosexual relationship will still not match the ideal of marriage.

[Ned]

Originally posted by notyoueither


An unjust law should be resisted and railed against until it is changed. Yes, it is up to people to decide which laws are unjust and to peacefully agitate for change.

Yes, but obeyed as well. In a democracy, people can change the law through the vote. Resort to deliberate civil disobedience is intollerable.

In a sense, the Civil War was all about taking the law into ones own hands and avoiding the available legal process to decide the issue of secession.

And surely, the case of the Alabama Supreme Court Justice was about his defiance of a court order. That is why he was removed from office.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


I deny it. Children result from sexual intercourse, which can occur outside marriage and being married is no guarantee of sexual intercourse.

Ben, This argument is consistent from a communist whose manifesto denounced marriage.

I haven't seen all of Che's posts here, but I assume that, being a good communist, he is against all marriages, including gay marriage.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
That's why the real point still rests in given the perfect homosexual relationship will still not match the ideal of marriage.

It is not up to you to determine the morals and guidelines of others.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Side note:

A 62-year old consultant who is occasionally in our offices stopped me this morning to ask me about the SF thing. We talk politics a lot, and he's more on the conservative end (though not right-wing). He mentioned that a month ago or so he and his wife had a dinner party with several couples their own age where they all discussed the gay marriage issue, and they all agreed that civil unions were ok, but marriage shouldn't be touched.

Well, after seeing the SF marriages taking place, this past weekend he polled everyone in that group, and they all, to a person, had changed their minds and thought it was fine now. He couldn't explain why, but he himself had the same sentiment.

So I wonder if now that it is a fait accomplit in SF, it will have a dramatic impact on public opinion of this kind around the country. I think seeing the images of so many happy couples finally being able to get something for which they had ached for a long time warmed people's hearts.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


But in a democratic society, that is how we decide what the law should be. I see no good reason put forth to change the law, or why the minority opinion ought to supercede the majority.

Nothing wrong with a minority group of people advocating for a justifiable end.

Take abolitionists of antebellum United States for example -- they were a minority group on the fringe for quite some time. But over the years, more and more people took up a more moderate anti-slavery stance because extreme abolitionists persistently kept this issue in active dialogue.

By 1863, many people in the North believed that the sacrifices made by Union soldiers means they should fight for total victory -- which, in their eyes, had to include the destruction of slavery.


Now, let's jump back to the present -- the advocates in favor of gay marriage may be in the minority, but I vouch that as long as this issue remains in active dialogue over an extended period of time (it has already by this point), that more and more people will come to greater acceptance of the idea of equality regardless of sexual orientation.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


I'm just blind to it, I think... it shouldn't really matter who one sleeps with, unless it causes problems for the person. And there are people who feel trapped by the lifestyle, even if you feel satisfied.

What a truckload of BS.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Yep.

I don't shun gays, therefore I'm a gay enabler.

[Ned]

Compromise solution:

Define all "marriages" by the government as "civil unions." "Marriages" would be reserved exclusively for religious ceremonies. However, both kinds would have equal status before the law.

We could call civil union couples "civilized."

Nah, on second thought, this woud not work.

Civil unions are simply contracts between two people. I don't see how one can deny people the right to contract. However, the law grants married couples certain rights and benefits because society has judged that raising children in stable marriages is fundamental to society.

I can see no justification to giving gay unions all benefits and rights accorded traditional marriages ipso facto because many of this rights and benefits have nothing to do with gay couples. Further, the existence gay marriages severely complicates society's ability to legislate in favor of traditional marriages.

In posting in these threads on this issue, I have repeatedly asked the question whether society has the right to give special rights and privileges to traditional marriages as a preferred societal structure. To date, no one has answered the question.

[Ben Kenobi]

I have repeatedly asked the question whether society has the right to give special rights and privileges to traditional marriages as a preferred societal structure.

Yep, they have every right to do so. Just as they have the right to give benefits to veterans.

Not every benefit need be distributed on the basis of equality.

[Ben Kenobi]

It is not up to you to determine the morals and guidelines of others.

No, but then I do not advocate this. The people ought to be able to determine, in a democracy, the laws of society.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

You'd do well arguing for slavery or apartheid along these lines, at least until your views were in the minority of recognised electors. What then, Ben? Will you accept organised religions being banned when the majority become atheists and are good and tired of religious behaviour that they see as immoral?

Good point. However, I argue that marriage cannot be a fundamental human right because it requires two people to exercise the right.

That is not a sound argument. All sorts of fundamental rights require more than the indivdual. Association, expression, etc. And then there is a big one, freedom of Religion, which inherently involves groups of people.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
To a Christian, recognition of marriage by the state is almost pointless. They care very little, and the state intervention is more for the interests of the state, than it is for the churches. The state wants to rein in the marriages performed by the churches, and to avoid problems like the Mormons, etc.

For this argument, nothing changes in a marriage between a black woman, or a white woman. Race ought to be irrelevant in the context of marriage.

State recognition of marriages is greatly beneficial for those who get married. It effects taxation, property rights, medical care, estates, and the interests of individuals upon seperation. Not to mention that married couples are preferred in many cases for adoption.

For this argument, nothing changes in a marriage between heteros or homos. Orientation ought to be irrelevant in obtaining the benefits that the state confers to married people.

Originally posted by Agathon
Religious people feel like the victims here. Marriage in our society has always been a religious institution until recently. My guess is that they didn't much like the state muscling in on their ritual and especially now since the state seems to be accepting something that religion explicitly prohibits.

Which religious people? There are churches who want to welcome gay couples into their congregations and bestow upon them the blessings of the church on their union.

Furthermore, marriage has always been an institution with civil consequences. That is why the state is involved, and that is why the religious convictions of the many or the few should not be involved in the decision of who can be married and who can't be.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Everyone has a right to vote on this issue, to determine what should be the scope of the state with respect to marriage. To deny this right, is to strip away the authority of the legislature, to be replaced by the tyranny of the courts.

Those nations which recognise Constitutions as a supreme law strip away some of the authority of the legislature from day 1. It is considered to be the best way of organising our states. It is considered superior for exactly these sorts of issues where mob rule would lead towards destructive ends for the state itself or for disadvantaged citizens of the state.

It is not the courts that are the problem, it is the people who think that their own values should be forced on everyone else. That is the tyranny that the courts should prevent.

Originally posted by Ned
Yes, but obeyed as well. In a democracy, people can change the law through the vote. Resort to deliberate civil disobedience is intollerable.

Explain that in light of Ghandi, Martin Luther King Jr., or maybe even your own patriots of the 1770's.

Unjust laws should be resisted. That is the moral thing to do.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Again, by your own logic, the case for gay marriage is mere personal opinion, so why should the government force people to recognise them, when they oppose the concept?

You misunderstand my points entirely. Whether or not any individual couple should or should not be married is not my right to decide. It is theirs. You want it to be yours. You think it will be harmful to them, maybe it will be, maybe it won't. No different than a hetero marriage in that regard.

It is not a case for gay marriage, but a case against denying the benefits of marriage based on gender and sexual orientation.

So, should priests and pastors be forced to bless gay marriages because to recognise them via force does not infringe on their rights?

No. The state should not be allowed to discriminate based on gender or sexual orientation. Private groups are not the state. Priests and pastors are obviously not employees of the state (at least not in that capacity), and so your argument has no applicability whatsoever to a discussion about what the state should or should not be required to recognize as a marriage.

Again, this is not about forcing people to do what someone else wants, but rather to allow people to do what they will.

Everyone has a right to vote on this issue, to determine what should be the scope of the state with respect to marriage. To deny this right, is to strip away the authority of the legislature, to be replaced by the tyranny of the courts.

So if the majority of people wanted to reinstate slavery you would support that?

Secondly, what right is there to be married? There is none.

By recognizing marriages, the state is not (or should not be) allowed to discriminate about which marriages it recognizes based on gender or sexual orientation. This is not a right to marriage issue, but a right to freedom from discrimination based on gender and sexual orientation.

Well, then you must submit to evidence that does show that such marriages would be harmful that does not rely on personal testimony.

There is no such evidence. Your only 'evidence' offered is about the capability of a same sex couple raising children being less. This is not an argument applicable to marriage, but rather to adoption.

You also offer an argument about lifestyle risk. You fail to realize that allowing gay marriage does not make people gay. Again you are applying an argument (which is stupid in it's own regard) about whether or not people should be gay to the issue of gay marriage.

You are trying to argue against gay marriage by saying you don't agree with gay adoption (or otherwise raising of children) or being gay. You don't offer any evidence as to any harm that would be done by allowing gays the same rights (as defined by the state) as hetero couples enjoy.

Secondly, we bar things like polygamy, because they can be shown to be harmful to the participants. So your argument that the state has no place to intervene falls flat. The state should intervene, when a wife is confined in her home and beaten.

I have never once claimed that the state is not allowed to ban or restrict action which is deemed harmful. I have argued that your points as to how gay marriage is harmful is opinion and speculation. (and bigotted opinion and speculation at that)

I have also repeatedly tried to show you how the capability to raise children is an issue regarding allowing a couple to have children (however that may be), not an issue regarding marriage itself.

If I were to drag up some statistic about the correlation between believing in a deity of some sort and terrorism, would that be a valid argument against allowing people to practice their religion?

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
You were the one who said that children do not matter, it is the union. I am merely acceding to your point by arguing that the union cannot be the same.

It can be treated the same by the state though, given the same advantages regardless of gender and sexual orientation.

Marriage is a physical union. Would an unconsummated marriage be looked upon as valid, or would it be an anomaly? Marriage is about the union of a man and woman, which until recently, would have resulted in children.

You fail to recognize the difference between 'can' and 'does'. Not all marriages result in children, or even consummation. How a couple views their marriage is not up to you or I to determine.

Marriage in and of itself is not a sexual union. It may lead to one, it may not. It may strengthen one, it may weaken it. That isn't relevant to the issue at hand. In the context of this thread, marriage is a state recognition of the union of two people.

No, but the refusal to consummate a marriage can constitute grounds for divorce by the denied partner.

And this would be no different in a gay marriage.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


No, but then I do not advocate this. The people ought to be able to determine, in a democracy, the laws of society.

This is a republic. Minorities are protected in a republic. The laws protect those who would otherwise be denied rights by people like you.