Bush Urges Congress to Pass Amendment Banning Same-Sex Marriage

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by Flip McWho
Ditto

[Ben Kenobi]

Sorry bout taking so long to reply.

An individuals right to worship is protected in their right to freedom of religion, this includes whatever practises that come with it. But I don't see how that ties to marriage.

The point I was making is that the right to freedom of religion is an individual right, it is not conferred on collectives. The reason being that it makes no sense as a collective right.

The same is true of marriage. We have a freedom of association as individuals, but we do not have a right to marriage, because a marriage is a union of a man and a woman. You do not have one individual, you have two.

They do have that right if there is an [obvious] case of discrimination.

You missed what I was trying to say. No one has the right to demand marriage benefits. Not even a man and a woman if the society decides that they are not going to provide those benefits. They do not have an entitlement to those funds, nor do they have any such right to the money provided by the state. No one has, whether they are gay or straight.

Do you agree that two homosexual partners can form a deep and intimate bond in the same vein as a heterosexual bond that leads to marriage?

'same vein' assumes what you are trying to prove.

A better question would be, do I believe the bond between 2 gay men, or between 2 gay women to be the same as between a man and a woman in marriage? The answer to that would be no. Oh, and btw, 'leads to marriage' presumes that the bond happens before marriage. I can't assume this true for all married couples.

If it is possible for homosexuals to form such a bond, why are they unable to get the same rights and responsibilities as heterosexual couples that is bestowed by the state upon marriage?

I would argue that while the bond may be considered 'deep', and 'intimate' that the one between a man and a woman is not the same as one between a man and a man or between a woman and a woman. The issue is not 'depth' or 'intimacy' rather is it is one of substance. Are the two bonds the same? No, there are fundamental differences between the two.

Ummm yes they do. Heterosexual couples have the right to be married because the state recognises their form of relationship as valid,

Ok. Stop right here. The state 'recognises' their relationship. Nowhere does that say they have a right to be married. Right are applied to individuals, the state chooses to recognise marriage between a man and a woman because the state derives benefits from this relationship beyond others.

I cannot go from there and say that I have a right to be married; if I cannot find a willing partner, then I cannot exercise my so-called right to marriage. Whereas my right to life remains with me regardless of my marital status.

whereas they do not recognise that a homosexual couple are capable of forming a bond akin to a marriage of hetero's. Every heterosexual has this right, as long as both parties consent to it. Marriage is a right based on the consent of both parties. Every heterosexual couple has this right (can you think of any that don't?) to get married.

No, you cannot consent to a right. Rights just are. How can you consent to your own right to life? How can you consent to liberty or association?

You're right that homos have the right to get married as well. They do, married to females of course.

Again a collective. 'Homos' do not have the right to be married. An individual gay man has the same ability to get married to another woman, as I do, provided she gives consent. The state makes it no more difficult for him, then it will for me.

But they are not allowed their freedom of conscious because they are denied marriage to whom they desire, not whom is recognised as a valid marriage partner (the opposite sex) by the state.

What if I desired someone who did not desire me? I could no more demand to be married, then to violate her own freedom of conscience. You see, conscience does not apply to the 'couple' but to the individuals. Secondly, even if the individuals did agree that they wanted a relationship together, their conscience and association are not violated by the state. The state will not intervene tear them apart.

Now, if you go from that and say that the state is obligated to recognise their relationship as marriage because the two of you 'desire marriage' then I must say that does not apply to heterosexual couples. There are certain conditions that must be met, such as age and blood before the state will recognise a marriage.

Since there are no negatives associated with giving homos the right to marry then the only arguments against falls on religious grounds which are supposedly separated from the state.

First off, you have not proved this statement. Secondly, even if there were no negatives, that does nothing to deal with the argument that the union between a man and a woman is superior to other arrangements.

[SlowwHand]

If you would move off the procreation point, your argument would dissolve.

[Ben Kenobi]

There are good reasons for those. There aren't good reasons why gays can't marry.

- Under 16 is considered too immature to make a responsible decision in regards to marriage

- Isn't marrying family a genetic thing?

First of all, consider this. You are arguing we should recognise a union that cannot produce children. Ergo, you lose the argument that incestuous marriages are bad because they may produce bad genetics. For why should we assume that any couple in marriage is going to have children? We cannot, therefore, it makes no sense to say that we should bar incestuous relationships.

As for age, girls at 12 have been considered marriageable and mature enough to enter a marriage. What has changed between then and now? Society has decided that they ought to protect children, and for that reason they have set the marriage ages the way in which they have.

Second sentence needs backing up. What is so unique about marraige that homosexual couples can't achieve?

The union of a man and a woman, is the only union in which children can be produced.

Third sentence contradicts itself. Gay people have the freedom to share their lives together but they are constrained in that the state doesn't recognise this relationship as akin to marriage.

Why are they constrained from sharing their lives together if they possess the freedom to do so by the state? Are you saying that unless gay people get married, they cannot sustain their relationships?

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
The union of a man and a woman, is the only union in which children can be produced.

so old people shouldnt get married

[Ben Kenobi]

Oh, and happy birthday slowwy!

Sorry I have not posted in your thread yet!

Many happy days!

[SlowwHand]

And you insist on pushing people away from religion.
Love is love, Ben. You're saying God screwed up.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Ben, you need to be clear on a few things:

1) The State does not "recognize" marriage; it creates marriage. Without the power granted to clergy by the State, "marriages" performed in churches would have as much standing as the ones performed by little girls when they marry their stuffed animals to each other.

2) The State cannot chose which benefits it extends to competent adults and which it does not. It can't, for example, decide that white people can marry, but not black people.

3) The State is not in the business of judging which kinds of unions are superior to which other kinds. It can't offer marriage in general, but deny it to two senior citizens because they can no longer breed. It can't keep a fertile woman from marrying an infertile man, because its a waste of good eggs. It can't keep a computer geek in NY from marrying his on-line sweetheart in LA even though the two have only ever met in their shared WoW guild hall. It cant keep a billionaire from marrying Anna Nicole Smith because its all too creepy for words.

[Ben Kenobi]

How many heterosexual marriages are stable? How many end up in divorce? Being a hetero doesn't make you automatically prone to having a stable relationship. Stable relationships are worked at by both people in the relationship, I don't appreciate how you cheapen relationships by saying only heterosexuals are prone to stable ones.

First of all, how does one define a 'stable relationship?' For me I would say something that lasts 30 years, long enough to have a few kids and watch them grow up together. The ideal would be that the husband and wife stay faithful to one another in their marriage throughout this period.

By that measure, how many gay relationships are stable? Yet we see this is not all that uncommon among men and women. This is why I say that homosexual relationships are very unlikely to provide this sort of stability.

There is no reason that a homosexual couple cannot provide stability.

I would argue that part of it has to do with the fact that the unions are just not going to be of the same nature. It has nothing to do with the fault of either participant, it's like trying to drive a nail with a silver hammer. The hammer is just too soft.

Unless you're talking about having both a male and female role model for children, but then marriage isn't necessarily about having children. Thats a separate (albeit connected) sphere too marriage.

That is also part of what I label 'stability' as a catch for this argument too. One of the reasons why these relationships have more stability is because of the complementarity of the men with the women. Men and women have differences but those differences work together better then if you have two of the same type. One of the ways we see this is in having male and female role models for children.

Yes, because to do otherwise is discrimination.

I'll put that question to the married folks here. Is it rather important that your mate is either a man or a woman?

Since when has marriage been a prerequisite for having children? It is if your a catholic but I know many people who have had children in a relationship where they aren't married. Marriage does not necessarily deliver children, and nor does it need too. You're showing your catholic faith in this position.

I had the same argument before I became Catholic, you can dig through the archives and check. So that's a red herring.

Secondly, the question was what makes the union of a man and a woman unique from a man and a man and a woman and a woman. Again, because kids can come from this union. The fact that a particular marriage does not deliver children is not necessarily the fault of the participants, whereas that cannot be said of gay men and women who are perfectly able to have kids, but their union cannot produce them no matter how hard they try.

[SlowwHand]

1) The State does not "recognize" marriage; it creates marriage. Without the power granted to clergy by the State, "marriages" performed in churches would have as much standing as the ones performed by little girls when they marry their stuffed animals to each other

Untrue.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by SlowwHand


Untrue.

No, true. Christian "marriages," for example, had no standing in the Roman Empire until it Christianized.

Interracial marriages, wherever perfromed, had no standing in the state of Virginia (and many other states) before 1969.

Marriage is a state institution. To the extent that it has religious overtones, that can be traced to the theocratic roots of Civilization.

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm sorry, but what do you mean by that? I find it very hard to think of you as a tolerant person after you made that statement. Are you implying that homosexual relationships are inherently less stable than heterosexual ones? On what basis are you saying this?

Yes, as I said above. The fault does not really lie in the participants, so much as they are using the wrong tool. A silver hammer cannot drive nails as well as a wooden one, just as the union between a man and a woman will have more stability then between two men or two women in general.

I accept your argument that the state is "awarding" marriage to those it finds it beneficial to do so--if I have understood correctly (forgive me it's late).

You've got it.

But without proving that homosexual civil unions or marriages are something harmful to society lor homosexuals, or at the very least provide no benefits to society or homosexuals, on what basis are you making this claim?

I didn't even say that. I said marriage between men and women provide relative benefits as compared with other arrangements.

And even if it is true, surely the societal stigma against such relationships is a factor against its development?

Stigma has nothing to do with the fact that one union can produce kids, and the other cannot. That is an indication to me that there are fundamental differences between the two that have nothing to do with society.

Homosexual men or women can raise a child as well as heterosexuals (at least until this is disproven). This is because parents tend not to bring their sexual lives into their children's lives (we're all pretty uncomfortable with that, and I don't tihnk it changes if you switch teams).

So the gender of the parent is irrelevant? I think you'll find most folks would disagree that a child should not have both male and female role models or that they do better with both.

Homosexual men or women should be allowed the same other rights--such as the right to be seen as family, or given al property in the case of death of a partner. Civil unionis a good way to provide this without much hassle.

And they are prevented from writing a person into a will? Disagree here that if the relationship is so important, they should have no problem putting them in a will.

Pragamtically speaking I see what you mean. After all, they're still helping these kids live potentially good lives. Bu in terms of principle don't you find this repugnant? What reason do you have to think that homosexual couples cannot raise a child as well as a single parent, for example?

For the same reason men and women are not interchangeable parts. They have different roles in marriage, and different roles in raising children. It has nothing to do with the ability of the individual parents, they may love the children very well, but a mother cannot completely replace her son's father or a father her daughter's mother.

Ultimately it seems to me that sexual attraction is a strange way to judge people. There are many heterosexuals are psychollogically ubalanced, whose relationships are unstable and who cannot, as a result, live in stable relationships.

And apples to apples would see the same in gay people also. Unless gay people are immune to psychological difficulties.

If we are to speak of stability as a factor in a relationship and whether the state should "award" marriage on that basis then a good deal of humanity should simply be crossed off the list as simply incapable of doing so--or at least trying and failing with multiple partners before finding the right one.

Marriage provides stability for people. Talk to some of these folks and you'll see why. It's not so much what they bring but that they help each other.

Whereas I am sure that some homosexuals are quite capable of living in stable relationships with their partners.

Again, apples to apples sees a wide variety of stable straight couples.

If you want to judge on the basis of stability and cannot prove that homosexual relationships are inherently far less stable then I cannot see why I should support your argument.

Ok, that's a very good point. How many gay men and women meet my earlier criteria for a stable relationship? How common is this among gay people? I would say very very rare. Yet there are many such straight couples.

And seeing as we have no figures for homosexual civil unions as yet, we cannot make compare between homosexual and heterosexual marriages.

So unless we grant them marriage we can't compare the two on any substantive basis? Ok. That contradicts your earlier statement that it actually matters if I can show one to be less stable then the other. Why should I bother to do the legwork, if ultimately we must first recognise gay marriage to truly make a comparison?

But until then, what proof do you have of a strong, credible nature?

I am making an argument from reason based on principles that I think are relatively simple and straightforward. The unions are fundamentally different from one another as evidenced by the fact that one can produce kids, the others cannot.

Therefore, it stands to reason that given the unions having fundamental differences, that we should expect to see greater stability in the complementary union between men and women.

[Ben Kenobi]

And you insist on pushing people away from religion.
Love is love, Ben. You're saying God screwed up.

In making us weak and tempted to sin? God gave us the choice and the free will so that we could love him dearly. I don't think he screwed up in allowing us to fall and make mistakes.

[Ben Kenobi]

1) The State does not "recognize" marriage; it creates marriage. Without the power granted to clergy by the State, "marriages" performed in churches would have as much standing as the ones performed by little girls when they marry their stuffed animals to each other.

Recognises is in the constitution. Maybe other societies believed differently but in the west the state recognises marriages, it does not create them out of whole cloth.

2) The State cannot chose which benefits it extends to competent adults and which it does not. It can't, for example, decide that white people can marry, but not black people.

Sure they can. Why is the state obligated to provide benefits at all? The state can strip away all benefits associated with marriage if it so chose. There is no obligation of the state to provide marriage benefits.

Secondly, the state can pick and choose to whom it gives benefits. One example being disability, another to veterans. The key being here 'ameliorative benefits'.

3) The State is not in the business of judging which kinds of unions are superior to which other kinds.

Sure they are. They judge in the case of marriages between close relatives and marriages involving children.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Recognises is in the constitution. Maybe other societies believed differently but in the west the state recognises marriages, it does not create them out of whole cloth.

The Constitution contains no refernces to marriage.

Sure they can. Why is the state obligated to provide benefits at all? The state can strip away all benefits associated with marriage if it so chose. There is no obligation of the state to provide marriage benefits.

Secondly, the state can pick and choose to whom it gives benefits. One example being disability, another to veterans. The key being here 'ameliorative benefits'.

Are you really this thick? The state doesn't pick and choose whom to give disability benefits to; it creates the category, disability, and than has to take anyone who fits.

And -- and this is the thing: it can't discriminate based on gender.

You are right to say that the State can strip away all benefits, but that's my point: it's all or nothing. You want to create benefits for contracts between dyads, then its got to be all dyads.

Sure they are. They judge in the case of marriages between close relatives and marriages involving children.

I said "competent adults," which rules out the children argument. The incest prohibition does not discriminate; it bans all incestuous relations.

Every single argument you've made for banning gay marriage has previously been made at some point to justify banning interracial marriage and interfaith marriage. They are all equally repellent arguments.