CA Overturns Gay Marriage Ban!

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Sure, the problem is how can you make the claim to distinguish 'deep' relationships from others? What about friendship? Shouldn't that be recognised also in the same manner?

I don't want to **** my friends of either sex. I have a few very close female friends who I care about a great deal. I don't want to sleep with them or have them walk around naked in front of me. Romantic relationships are different. You would know this if you had been in one (and I don't mean a short term relationship based on lust, but something stronger than that). Modern marriage is designed to protect those relationships.

I already dealt with this when I said that they are assuming a conjugal relationship is necessary. It's not a deep relationship at all, but a conjugal one is the only one assumed. That has become the new standard, and why universities are now having people assert, rather ludicriously that they have to be having sex in order to claim the benefits. This is to exclude the same partner benefits from being given to other deep relationships that are non-conjugal.

I think that is ludicrous too. ****ing for benefits discriminates against those who would want to wait. You don't have to have sex with a person to have a romantic relationship, but you do have to want to have sex with them or at least want some form of physical intimacy that you don't have with others.

[snoopy369]

Agathon:

A less vulnerable and more consistent defence would be to base the claim on the fact that gay people can develop relationships that are just as deep and meaningful as heterosexual relationships. The purpose of marriage laws is to provide some public recognition of such relationships and offer them meaningful legal protection.

I absolutely disagree. The purpose of state sanctioned marriage is simply to provide recognition of a dependent relationship, and to simplify financial arrangements based on that relationship. There is NO other purpose. The state doesn't give a rat's ass who you are sleeping with; the fact that adultery is in some jurisdictions justification for divorce derives from common-law (though you could argue it's evidence of fraud). The state is allowing two people to declare a dependent relationship so that one can more easily transfer funds to the other, pay for healthcare, etc., and jointly have child dependents.

The reason this applies to homosexual marriage is simple - there's no reason to say you can't have the same dependent relationship among two men. I don't doubt that many of the folks who truly want to have gay marriage, in the 'it's actually going to matter to me in a physical way' are artists or musicians or whatnot that don't have consistent income, and have a partner who is a financial sector employee or whatnot who supports their dream of being a world-famous artist. That's why gay marriage is important and should be recognized; not simply because they want the state to approve of them sleeping together.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Arrian

p.s. I still don't think the personal liberty argument fails for the reason you think it does, Agathon. Generally speaking, the idea is that so long as you are not harming others, it's ok. How would gay marriage harm anyone?

My point is about logical consistency. If you think gay marriage is OK based solely on Mill's principle as justification, then you must think Mill's principle applies just as much elsewhere. If you say that, unpleasant things follow.

So either, you need to show why there is something special about gay marriage that added to Mill's principle provides a justification, or show that gay marriage has a different justification that doesn't entail unpleasant consequences.

My complaint is that people don't think it through.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Advocates for polygamy, and incest will say exactly the same thing.

But that doesn't mean they're correct.

If you justify one on a utilitatarian basis, then you open the door for similar claims.

It doesn't mean you have to accept those claims.

As evidenced in this thread, it seems to be the prevailing desire is to open it up to everyone rather then simply put a new lock and chain up, this far and no further.

I've said before, I don't believe the current status quo is tenable.

Generally, most of us would rather permit than forbid. It seems you are more into forbidding.

-Arrian

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by snoopy369
A single first cousin marriage may not; but in the long run, most certainly, if the practice happened numerous times.

You're free to post any real evidence you have. You could also go for a hat trick and give me a real reason keeping in mind all the legal claims about gay marriage wrt to equal protection, why incest is illegal given the lack of scientific evidence to support the ban on at least 1st cousin pairings?

bear the cost of their particular religious preference themselves...

The Ashkenazi are an ethnic group.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Agathon


My point is about logical consistency. If you think gay marriage is OK based solely on Mill's principle as justification, then you must think Mill's principle applies just as much elsewhere. If you say that, unpleasant things follow.

So either, you need to show why there is something special about gay marriage that added to Mill's principle provides a justification, or show that gay marriage has a different justification that doesn't entail unpleasant consequences.

My complaint is that people don't think it through.

Mill's principle + benifits to society (of promoting stable gay relationships and allowing for them to raise children). Right, sorted.

I think this *could* be done for polygamy as well, depending on just how it's set up under the law. Then again, you can also make a harm argument about polygamy, based on its history of being overwhelmingly exploitative.

In the case of incest, there is at least one obvious problem: genetic defects. DD's point about other genetic defects is interesting, though, I'll admit.

-Arrian

[Agathon]

Originally posted by snoopy369

I absolutely disagree. The purpose of state sanctioned marriage is simply to provide recognition of a dependent relationship, and to simplify financial arrangements based on that relationship. There is NO other purpose. The state doesn't give a rat's ass who you are sleeping with; the fact that adultery is in some jurisdictions justification for divorce derives from common-law (though you could argue it's evidence of fraud). The state is allowing two people to declare a dependent relationship so that one can more easily transfer funds to the other, pay for healthcare, etc., and jointly have child dependents.

The reason this applies to homosexual marriage is simple - there's no reason to say you can't have the same dependent relationship among two men. I don't doubt that many of the folks who truly want to have gay marriage, in the 'it's actually going to matter to me in a physical way' are artists or musicians or whatnot that don't have consistent income, and have a partner who is a financial sector employee or whatnot who supports their dream of being a world-famous artist. That's why gay marriage is important and should be recognized; not simply because they want the state to approve of them sleeping together.

This is a ludicrous view. The conservatives are absolutely right that such a view devalues marriage. Marriage is a social institution and has life independently of the law. It is not the same as a business contract. I hope you aren't married.

What you are describing is a civil partnership. Sure, the state can have those alongside marriages, but they aren't the same. When homosexual activists claim that allowing homosexuals access to civil partnerships is discriminatory, they are absolutely right, because marriage has a distinct social status that a civil partnership does not.

Your theory would reduce the value of all marriages to civil partnerships, something no better than a business contract, and hardly anyone is going to buy that. Marriage legislation is not only about finance, but about public recognition of a certain kind of ideal relationship. The religious people are absolutely correct about that, but wrong to think that homosexuals can't have such relationships or that they are worthy of less public recognition than heterosexual marriages.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Agathon
I think that is ludicrous too. ****ing for benefits discriminates against those who would want to wait. You don't have to have sex with a person to have a romantic relationship, but you do have to want to have sex with them or at least want some form of physical intimacy that you don't have with others.

I've never heard of that requirement, and never been subject to it; the domestic partner requirements I've seen always require simply a statement that you are sharing financial things such as rent and 'pooling money' or some such, and a time restriction on changing them (you can't change within a year or two usually). At my current company they require a form be signed stipulating something to that affect... very simple really.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by snoopy369


I've never heard of that requirement, and never been subject to it

I haven't either. Do you have to get a blow job in front of the housing committee or what?

[Ben Kenobi]

I don't want to **** my friends of either sex. I have a few very close female friends who I care about a great deal. I don't want to sleep with them or have them walk around naked in front of me. Romantic relationships are different. You would know this if you had been in one (and I don't mean a short term relationship based on lust, but something stronger than that). Modern marriage is designed to protect those relationships.

Oh, I wholly understand, however, the only justification for the recognition of gay marriage that has been given is that it provides stability. That applies equally to conjugal or non-conjugal relationships, especially with respect to friendships. If we can argue that recognition in itself provides the stability, then that is a serious argument to extend the benefit to long term friendships that are merely platonic.

I think that is ludicrous too. ****ing for benefits discriminates against those who would want to wait. You don't have to have sex with a person to have a romantic relationship, but you do have to want to have sex with them or at least want some form of physical intimacy that you don't have with others.

Oh I understand that is the intent, but all it requires is for two people to claim they are doing so. The internal state is something that can't really be validated externally.

[Arrian]

Marriage is a social institution and has life independently of the law. It is not the same as a business contract.

From the standpoint of the law, yeah, it basically is. And I am married... happily.

Your theory would reduce the value of all marriages to civil partnerships

I'm in. Marriage would be an individual thing the state has nothing to do with.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

the only justification for the recognition of gay marriage that has been given is that it provides stability

What is the justification for hetero marriage other than this? The kids thing? We've been over this. Married gays can bring up kids (whether adopted or created via test tube).

-Arrian

[Ben Kenobi]

What is the justification for hetero marriage other than this? The kids thing? We've been over this. Married gays can bring up kids (whether adopted or created via test tube).

So the fact that men and women together can bring up children without outside intervention is irrelevant? I don't think so, and I don't think the state believes that either.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Arrian

What is the justification for hetero marriage other than this? The kids thing? We've been over this. Married gays can bring up kids (whether adopted or created via test tube).

-Arrian

That it provides public recognition of the special status of a relationship? Similarly, the law provides public recognition of the fact that one is a parent. I'm surprised that you'd see this as a business contract. The law recognizes that there is a special relationship in both cases, even though legal remedies might be the same as in some other forms of relationship.

[Arrian]

So the fact that men and women together can bring up children without outside intervention is irrelevant?

Yes.

Outside intervention? By which you mean to say the use of technology or adoption? Dude, lots of heteros use technology in order to have kids too, and who the heck thinks adoption is a bad thing?

-Arrian