Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
What implications? The negative outcomes of opposite-sex marriages do not and should not affect its legality. Why should it be any different with SSM?You are trying to justify SSM without having people think through the implications of the changes.
Now you want to regulate sex? That has nothing to do with marriage laws.Sex is a very powerful force and needs to be regulated. the failure to do so is responsible for many problems, including broken homes and the consequences that come from those.
Now you want to regulate sex? That has nothing to do with marriage laws.
Just a little more to add. I was thinking further about the inconsistency, within my argument, of allowing infertile and older couples to marry. I realised that this issue is a red herring, and I want to try to explain why.
First, that the existence of marriage in the form we have it is primarily to provide a context for reproduction I think can readily be seen from the structure that it has, as well as considering its probable evolutionary history, as I already explored in my post #108, and won't waste space by repeating here.
Second, that there are some relationships currently permitted within the scope of marriage that do not lead to reproduction is not particularly an embarrassment to this case, and certainly does not give ground to expand the scope of marriage to other relationships that also don't lead to reproduction, for the reasons I shall explore below.
1) Traditional Marriage has never been codified, but is handed down to us in common law. This is the case with many ancient traditions that have passed into our modern law, and the English-speaking world operates with a common law system that accepts this (and the discussion in this thread has been primarily about US law). It does not mean that the system that was handed down has to be entirely consistent with the definition that may be implicit from its form. It is only if we are making a change to the system that we need to work through a self-consistent system, within our current jurisdictions. If we decided to change the system to exclude some forms of marriage that were previously permitted, then we need to explain carefully why - so a case could perhaps be made for excluding infertile and elderly couples from marriage on the basis of the implied common law definition of marriage. Alternatively, we could make a case for including other relationships that are currently excluded, by changing the definition of marriage. But maintaining the status quo does not need to be defended within the common law system; it is changes to the law that need to be explained and made self-consistent.
2) The potentially inconsistent relationships that are currently included within marriage differ from the ideal as a matter of degree rather than being different in kind. This is not the case with the relationships that SSM advocates are seeking to bring in.
To a first approximation, what is required to make a baby? Answer: a sexually mature man and woman having sex. Therefore, to a first approximation, the people that should be included within the remit of marriage are any sexually mature man with any sexually mature woman. That is pretty much the boundaries for marriage, with a few exclusions that can be justified in statute law (close relatives, mentally incompetent people, children under the age of 16/18 depending on jurisdiction).
Infertility in most cases is a matter of probability, not of an absolute. It is not so much that it is completely impossible for the couple to have a baby, just that it is very unlikely. In some cases, injury or surgical procedure may make that probability actually zero. However, where should the cut-off point be? The couple fit the basic entry requirement of being a sexually mature man and woman. Should they be excluded if their chance of having a baby is less than 50%? 25%? 10%? 1%? 0.01%? Wherever you draw the line, it is rather arbitrary. Also, medical advances may mean that these probabilities change over time.
Similarly, with elderly couples, where should the cut-off be? Should we set an age limit? Or should we set a time period after the woman's last period? If an age limit, that ignores the fact that the menopause can come at quite different ages in different women. If a time period, that depends on all women keeping a record of this information, and being truthful about it. In both cases, it also ignores the fact that medical technology is pushing back the boundaries of when people can have children. And any cut-off point would again be arbitrary.
Also, with couples who don't intend to have children, this is also a matter of degree. What if a couple is 90% sure they want children - is that good enough? What if they are 50-50? What if they are 90% sure they don't want children? What if they start out 100% sure they want children but later change their minds? What if they start out 100% sure they don't want children but later change their minds? Any cut-off point will be arbitrary.
However, all these couples fulfill the basic eligibility requirements of being a sexually mature man and woman. There could be grounds for amending the law to exclude some of them, but there is no need to do so. The basic definition of marriage is not affected by their inclusion, since we understand that babies come from a sexually mature man and woman having sex. The difference between these couples and those who will actually have babies within their marriages is one of degree not of kind.
However, permitting two men or two women to marry is a difference of kind, not of degree. These couples do not fulfill the most basic eligibility requirement for being able to produce a baby. The definition of marriage will have to be changed if their relationships are to be recognised as marriage. If the definition is to be changed, the form of marriage should also be altered in order to reflect and be consistent with the new definition.
In a secular society, there is no absolute bar to making such a change. However, enacting a change by statute requires the issue to be thought through, and a consistent definition to be used, considering all the relationships that should be included under the new definition, and creating a form of marriage that is consistent with the definition. The current form of marriage is not suited for a definition of marriage that is not primarily about reproduction. In a democracy, the people should also be fully informed about the nature and implication of the changes, which profoundly affect society's structure as well as the way we think about ourselves, and asked to approve those changes.
The exact form in which that approval will be given will vary from country to country and is a constitutional matter. However, in any democracy the people should be made aware of the changes in definition that are occurring. There are at least two major changes in definition that are being made, as I outlined previously. One is that marriage is being defined not about providing a context for the rearing of children but about the love between the two (or more) partners involved. The second is that it is no longer being regarded as normative that a child should be raised by their two biological parents, but can be raised just as well by any two (or other number) of competent adults. These points should be made very clear and careful public consultation should be undertaken to ensure that the public is aware of the nature of the changes and approves of them. As far as I have seen, such an open and frank consultation has not taken place in any of the countries that have been considering introducing SSM. Consequently, the laws that have been passed or are being proposed to be passed are messy and inconsistent and open to future challenge in the courts.
Roonwit
You are aware that the courts have consistently rejected reasoning along these lines? Marriage has no requirements for reproduction so trying to selectively apply a reproduction issue does not work.
Exactly. Plus, having children is a very common result of a marriage, but it is not the reason for the marriage.
We went round and round with that a few pages ago. We ended up getting responses about evolution and tradition:You are aware that the courts have consistently rejected reasoning along these lines? Marriage has no requirements for reproduction so trying to selectively apply a reproduction issue does not work.
We went round and round with that a few pages ago. We ended up getting responses about evolution and tradition:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7855519-11/#post66780532
http://www.christianforums.com/t7855519-14/#post66784605
Apparently, it doesn't matter to him that opposite-sex couples are not required to demonstrate parenting skills, much less an actual desire or intention to have children. The idea that the institution of marriage became a state issue for the purpose of procreation is enough reason to ban SSM, by his logic.
Yes, I saw. I thought that if he was going to waste the time and verbosity on the subject he might as well look up the legal rulings so that he could at least try to address the reasoning of the court.
To be fair, I believe he said he was from the UK, not the US. So you can't really focus too much on the legal reasoning in the US court system.
Oh, but he tried to be an authority on the subject, so we can definitely judge his level of success:To be fair, I believe he said he was from the UK, not the US. So you can't really focus too much on the legal reasoning in the US court system.
But hey, you asked about US law, so let's work with that. One of the many blessings the US inherited from us in the UK is the common low legal system. There is much in this system that is not codified, but has been handed down from the generations. Therefore, in order to understand the legal purpose of marriage, it is absolutely relevant to ask how it came about and how it has been regarded in the past.
The implications I have consistently referred to are the change in the purpose of marriage and the change in understanding of who is best suited to raise children.What implications? The negative outcomes of opposite-sex marriages do not and should not affect its legality. Why should it be any different with SSM?
And you've failed to show that SSM brings about such a change in understanding, or even that this understanding is relevant to US law.The implications I have consistently referred to are the change in the purpose of marriage and the change in understanding of who is best suited to raise children.
I have shown that SSM must bring about such a change in understanding, so I'm not going to do it again.Cearbhall said:And you've failed to show that SSM brings about such a change in understanding, or even that this understanding is relevant to US law.
I have shown that SSM must bring about such a change in understanding, so I'm not going to do it again.
With regard to US law, you are right that I am not familiar with the recent case law on the subject, so I was dealing with the common law heritage shared with the UK. If there is recent case law then that could change the legal position until specific statute is enacted to overturn that case law. But the thread asked whether a secular defence of the introduction of such a statute could be made, and I have shown that it can.
What I do know is that the European Court of Human Rights, which is possibly the most liberal court in the world, refused to rule that there is a right to same sex marriage in countries that have not explicitly permitted it by statute.
Roonwit
Marriage doesn't have to include children under the pretenses that one is sterile, can't conceive, or have children already.
Paulos, I was focusing on SSM because that is the subject of the thread, and because that is the change to marriage that is currently being proposed. If we were proposing changing things to enable people to marry their pets, I would be focusing on that.
Yes, I am arguing that if we are making changes to the statutes on marriage then we should make them consistent. I agree that the current system is not entirely self-consistent, but the reason for that is that is has grown up by accident over millenia before it was ever covered by statute. (The existence of smoking is a similar issue... if smoking were to be invented today, it would be banned immediately; because it has been around for centuries, we have to work around the fact that many people already do it.)
Consequently, there could be a case for reforming marriage law to exclude some people who are currently permitted to marry. But I don't think that case is particularly pressing, since the difference between those people and those who are capable of fulfilling the purpose of marriage is a difference of degree not of kind. The proposed changes are to expand the scope of marriage to include relationships that are different in kind from those that fall within the scope of marriage.
In my view, civil partnerships do all the work that is needed to resolve the justice issue regarding homosexual couples. If you have those, there is no justice issue that requires a change in the definition of marriage. They do, however, create a new injustice of their own, since I think closely-related couples who live together should also be able to access civil partnerships.
Roonwit
And all of those cases apply to SSM as well. Not a good arguement for not making it legal.
Gay marriage is the reason for not making gay marriage legal. Same as marrying an animal or a sibling. You all seem to struggle with this very simple observation apparently.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?