Land of the Free

[Ben Kenobi]

If, for some reason, the majority decided to ban Christianity, would you be okay with that?

No, but what would that entail? People would just keep practicing anyways, even if they banned it. In order to stamp down on the Christians, they would need to violate a whole host of other individual rights and freedoms. By limiting marriage to one man and one woman, how can one say that one is violating any other individual rights and freedoms?

Secondly, the freedom to practice religion, is in itself, an individual right. Can one say the same for marriage? Does it make any sense to call it an 'individual' right?

[Ben Kenobi]

since all freedoms are individual, then relationships fall under that heading.

No, that doesn't work. Are all freedoms 'individual'? If this were so, why use the term, 'individual' rights and freedoms. Is it possible to have freedoms in the collective sense? If so, then marriage would fall under this heading apart from individual freedoms.

In a marriage, you are never talking about 1 individual, but always, about the partnership.

We are saying that rights make sense when applied to individuals. To say that Christians, as a group, have the right to practice, that does not say that they, as individuals also have the right to practice. However, it works properly the other way, to say that each individual Christian has a right to practice, also permits the collective to practice.

This is why you don't have the right to marry. You cannot marry yourself.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


No, that doesn't work. Are all freedoms 'individual'? If this were so, why use the term, 'individual' rights and freedoms. Is it possible to have freedoms in the collective sense? If so, then marriage would fall under this heading apart from individual freedoms.

In a marriage, you are never talking about 1 individual, but always, about the partnership.

We are saying that rights make sense when applied to individuals. To say that Christians, as a group, have the right to practice, that does not say that they, as individuals also have the right to practice. However, it works properly the other way, to say that each individual Christian has a right to practice, also permits the collective to practice.

This is why you don't have the right to marry. You cannot marry yourself.

First, it takes two individuals to make up a couple. If two individuals seek to establish a committed relationship with one another, and decide to marry, they should be treated under the same laws of marriage as everyone else for the sake of fairness. This principle of fairness, in turn, helps legally protect everyone's marriage and the privileges that go with it.



And thanks for your insightful revelation that one cannot marry oneself.

[Berzerker]

Ben -

Relationships do not fall under the heading of 'individual' freedoms Mr. Fun.

The only one that does, is your freedom to associate.

One is enough, and that one is quite important. Every relationship, from marriage to business, is based on this freedom of association.

To say that a relationship ought to be protected, is a different sort of idea altogether.

Either government protects freedom of association or it doesn't and freedom goes only to the politically connected. My problem is that homosexuals will use this to sue people who refuse to treat them like married couples. It's ironic for the court to say churches/priests won't be obliged to marry homosexuals when we all know the same court will uphold lawsuits against other people who discriminate. Freedom of association for homosexuals, freedom of association and religion for priests, but no freedom of association for all the other people who don't want to treat homosexual couples as if they are married. Landlords, business owners, etc...

Follow the money...

[Agathon]

First, it takes two individuals to make up a couple.

Sig material.

[MrFun]

Well, when you're arguing with some of the Apolytoners here, it's sometimes necessary to start a post out with the most mundane, obvious point.

[Agathon]

Well, when you're arguing with some of the Apolytoners here, it's sometimes necessary to start a post out with the most mundane, obvious point.

I see... and then continue in the same vein, right?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

If, for some reason, the majority decided to ban Christianity, would you be okay with that?

No, but what would that entail? People would just keep practicing anyways, even if they banned it. In order to stamp down on the Christians, they would need to violate a whole host of other individual rights and freedoms. By limiting marriage to one man and one woman, how can one say that one is violating any other individual rights and freedoms?

What if I said you were free to be religious so long as you worship Buddha, but no other?

Secondly, the freedom to practice religion, is in itself, an individual right. Can one say the same for marriage? Does it make any sense to call it an 'individual' right?

Freedom of association?

[notyoueither]

Oh, and freedom of religion.

If there is a church who wants to marry two men, and two men who want to be married, what business is it of the Puritans what they do?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Kontiki


You can't win with this line of reasoning. Either gay marriages don't afford special benefits not accorded to others, or the status quo affords benefits not accorded to others. Which is it?

All three.

Except at Michaelmas and Candlemas, when the provisions contained in the Feast of the Circumcision's secret codicil apply.

Unless it's the third Sunday in the month, when you have to put on the special Donatist apron, and dance widdershins three times around the sacred font of received wisdom, known as Obi Gyn's opinion.

[Mercator]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
It would be an unenforceable regulation. (...) Therefore, one allows those who do not want children to marry, because there is no suitable alternative.

Exactly. So this reason is irrelevant for your argument against gay marriage.

However, what this neglects, is that if a couple is young, and fertile, for them to get married, and not have children, is also problematic. This is one of the bigger reasons for divorce, is if one of the couples in such a union wishes to have a child, they will likely leave this partner. This is why they tend to discourage these marriages from taking place.

I'm not sure I'm following. If two people get married before ever even discussing whether they want any children, they shouldn't have gotten married in the first place, IMHO.
But how exactly is this relevant? Are you trying to say that the partner who doesn't want the kids is more guilty of ruining the marriage that the partner who does want kids?

So it seems to me that while having children cannot be a requirement, it out to be the desired outcome of any marriage between fertile couples.

But that's your opinion, which doesn't actually having any bearing on the argument, because that's simply not how it is. And you said yourself that this can't be enforced.

First you need to get the children to have them taken care of.

Sure... Are you implying that married couples, on average, have more kids than unmarried couples (or single parents)? Do you have any statistics to back that up?

And if you do, are you sure that couples have more children because they got married, rather than couples getting married because they (want to) have children?

I'm sure that many people with children (or planning to have them) consider getting married as an easy way to cover things like their inheritance, or what will happen to the kids when one of the parents dies. The legal benefits, that is. But those don't cost society anything, as far as I'm aware.

There's a couple other benefits as well, the big one being stability. Both the man and the women, can be shown to be much more productive in a stable marriage rather than outside of one.

I'd rather think this is about being in a stable relationship. But first of all, there's no way you can guarantee a marriage to be stable. Secondly, this goes for gay couples as well! Or do you have any statistics that prove that married gay couples are somehow magically less productive.