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.
There is absolutely no reason to create a new institution out of whole cloth when already exists that can meet the need with only the slightest of modifications.Then perhaps what they are looking for is a modified kind of business law or charity law, rather than a modified kind of marriage law.
Why don't you think homosexual couples feel the same way?You point to inconsistencies in the current practice of marriage as evidence that SSM should be legalised. I would see them the other way - I think we should take marriage more seriously. I think people who promise to love someone for life should be expected to honour that promise, not to break it if it becomes inconvenient.
Same-sex marriage doesn't change any of those positions in the slightest.I think people who promise to be faithful should be expected to be so, and not excused for it. I think we should discourage people from having sex outside marriage. I think we should be doing everything we can to ensure that every child is raised by a married mother and father if at all possible, and by their biological mother and father as far as that is possible.
In the US, imposing the religious beliefs of one group on others that don't share those beliefs (and even on people who do share those beliefs) is a big problem for the rights outlined in our Constitution.I think there are excellent secular reasons for all of these positions, though my reasons for holding them are not purely secular, and neither do I see any reason why they ought to be.
Ah, finally the root of the argument becomes clear.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.
They are absolutely not interrelated. Unless of course, you think opposite-sex marriage is also interrelated with polygamous marriage.But they're not separate issues; they are interrelated. So they need to be dealt with as a group.
You have yet to establish that the purpose of marriage has to do with children. You have simply asserted that it is so.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.
You keep asserting this is true without giving anything to support the claim.The purpose of marriage is actually different from the reasons any given couple get married. The purpose of traditional marriage is to provide a context for the rearing of children.
"Consistent with" does not equal "reason for".Traditional marriage is consistent with the ideal that a child is best raised by their two biological parents.
Which has already been done with the acceptance of 2nd marriages, step-marriages, and the like.Changing the definition changes the ideal to being that a child can be raised equally well by any two (or other number) of competent adults.
He seems to think that this is just common knowledge and therefore doesn't require evidence. I assume it's difficult to accept that something which seems so indubitable based on one's personal background and beliefs is not, in fact, a given.You have yet to establish that the purpose of marriage has to do with children. You have simply asserted that it is so.
You keep asserting this is true without giving anything to support the claim.
I've actually given a detailed explanation of how the form of marriage (ie. the rights and responsibilities it entails) points towards its primary purpose being to provide an optimal context for child-rearing, and how the likely origin of the institution was for this purpose. So stop pretending that I haven't given reasons for my claims.Cearbhall said:He seems to think that this is just common knowledge and therefore doesn't require evidence. I assume it's difficult to accept that something which seems so indubitable based on one's personal background and beliefs is not, in fact, a given.
You have given your opinion that the form of marriage is for optimal child-rearing. Your opinion is just that, your opinion, nothing more. Government recognition of marriage was originally more about property rights and securing alliances than anything else.I've actually given a detailed explanation of how the form of marriage (ie. the rights and responsibilities it entails) points towards its primary purpose being to provide an optimal context for child-rearing, and how the likely origin of the institution was for this purpose. So stop pretending that I haven't given reasons for my claims.
Roonwit
Can you give any evidence to back up that claim?You have given your opinion that the form of marriage is for optimal child-rearing. Your opinion is just that, your opinion, nothing more. Government recognition of marriage was originally more about property rights and securing alliances than anything else.
True.[Edit: I have been reading a bit about DOMA and the legal issues around it. From what I have seen thus far, I think there is a good case for regarding it as unconstitutional, on the grounds that the federal government was taking to itself rights that were the prerogative of the states to determine, though not on any grounds relating to a constitutional requirement to recognise SSM. On the specific question of whether DOMA is justified, then, the answer to the question in the thread title is perhaps 'no' - but actually I don't think that was the intent of the question being asked. (And that having been said, it seems that there may well be a constitutional paradox, since effectively the choice by one state to legalise SSM may be forcing every other state and the federal government to legalise it whether they want to or not, which must itself be a violation of states' rights. All the arguments around this suggest that the definition of marriage should be a federal rather than a states' issue, because of the injustices that arise within the country if different states have different definitions. If that were the case, then there is no reason why DOMA ought not to stand, and be enforceable in every state, since it is the federal statute. But I'm not an expert and have only been looking into it a short time.)
I have also been arguing as though SSM is not legal in the US - I hadn't realised that actually most of the states have now legalised it; I thought only a few had. The issue with which I am dealing then is that of whether, prior to the enactment of statutes legalising SSM, there was any constitutional or legal or moral requirement for any states to legalise it.]
Ok, there are a lot of different bits of a lot of different arguments flying about. I want to try to understand what are the actual points of disagreement, so I can focus in on those. Perhaps you would be good enough to look through the list of statements below, and indicate whether you agree of disagree with each one. If you agree, a simple 'yes' is sufficient. If you disagree, a 'no' with a brief explanation as to why would be helpful.
1) There is no constitutional reason why a state could not choose to introduce SSM.
This is a double negative, could you clarify?2) There is no constitutional reason why a state could not choose not to introduce SSM.
False dichotomy. There is another option, the will of the people.3) If (1) and (2) are true, then the question of introducing SSM or not is a matter for the legislature rather than the courts.
Yes, but once that has been done, the onus shifts to the opposition to explain (using secular reasoning in the US) to explain why it the change is not a good one. As same-sex marriage will have aboslutely no impact on the ability of two biological parents to raise their children, child-rearing as a reason to oppose same-sex marriage fails this test.4) When making changes in the law, the onus is on those proposing the change to prove it is a good change, rather than on those opposing the change to prove it is a bad one.
In the US, many states enacted statutes defining marriage as between one man and one woman. Most of these have been overturned as violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to our Constitution.5) Marriage is not defined in statute.
True but not relevant. Until the latter part of the 20th century, the word "gay" was a euphemism for happy and/or joyful.6) Until the latter part of the 20th century, when people used the word 'marriage' within the English-speaking world, unless specifically qualified, both the speakers and listeners would have assumed that what was being referred to was a union of a man with a woman.
True but irrelevant. Many types of marriage consist of partners who are not biologically capable of being the biological parents of any children.7) Homosexual couples are not biologically capable of having children of whom both partners are the biological parent.
Possibly true for the religious institution of marriage but government recognition of marriage had more to do with property rights and securing alliances.8) The institution of marriage most probably came about in order to provide the optimal context for the raising of children.
No. Being raised by biological parents is not always the optimal environment for raising children nor has "one man and one woman for life, with the exclusion of close relatives and the mentally incompetent" ever been a requirement for traditional marriage.9) The key features of traditional marriage (one man and one woman for life, with the exclusion of close relatives and the mentally incompetent) would be requirements for an institution designed primarily to provide the optimal conditions for raising children, but would not be requirements for an institution designed primarily to provide a context for the partners to express their love to each other.
True, which is why placing the dividing line at same-sex couples is arbitrary. Same-sex couples who cannot marry are no different in kind than a couple who can not have children due to age, injury, or choice.10) Those couples currently able to marry who are not capable of having children differ in this regard from a typical married couple as a difference of degree, not a difference in kind. (That is to say, there exists a continuous spectrum between those who are fully willing and capable of bearing children within their marriage and those entirely incapable and/or unwilling, such that placing a dividing line at any point would be arbitrary.)
Provisionally true but irrelevant to the issue of same-sex marriage.11) All other things being equal, children are best raised by their two biological parents living together in one family.
True, and if the legal framework of marriage can be changed to accommodate more than two people at a time, go for it.12) If the purpose of marriage is understood as being to provide a context to publicly demonstrate the love of the partners for each other, there is no reason to limit the number of partners to two, nor to limit it to unrelated partners.
Sure. Look at the rights that come about as a result of government recognition of marriage.Can you give any evidence to back up that claim?
Roonwit
True. However, if the states prevents same-sex couples from marrying they must have a reason that meets the legal burden.2) If a state decides not to introduce gay marriage, it is not violating the constitution.
Usually the legislature. However, the legislature can also enact something against the will of the people as long as it is Constitutional. That's why I said there was a third option.I phraded it the way I did because a state prohibiting SSM is not changing he law but simply keeping thngs as they were.
3) Whose job is it to enact he will of the people?
I mean yes which is why I wrote yes. It's not my fault you asked a question with two different clauses. I answered both clauses and explained my reasoning.4) So you actually mean 'no'.
Post #2348) Evidence, please.
1) You might be correct, if your "key features of traditional marriage" were requirements for marriage. Since they aren't, your analogy is a false one.9) You're not responding to the statement I wrote. The statement is saying, IF I were to design institutions for those two purposes, traditional marriage would fit the bill for the first purpose very well, but not particularly the second.
1) Those benefits are the reasons why government recognizes marriage. If those benefits were not in question, there would be no reason for governments to recognize marriage.You haven't provided evidence that that is why government recognised marriage, only that those are some of the benefits currently given.
Wow, I couldn't disagree more.By the way, it is less likely that religious marriage is to do with children than that state marriage is. From a biblical point of view, I would point to marriage as a symbol of Christ and the Church. That's much more about the couple. It wad because I was restricted to secular arguments that I explored the likely evolution of marriage as a child-rearing institution.
Roonwit
And what is the legal burden? And if there is dispute between the legislature and the courts over whether it has been met, who has the final say?Queller said:True. However, if the states prevents same-sex couples from marrying they must have a reason that meets the legal burden.
The third option seems to be revolution. Is that what you mean? The army, basically (whoever's is strongest).Usually the legislature. However, the legislature can also enact something against the will of the people as long as it is Constitutional. That's why I said there was a third option.
It's clear that what you actually mean is that the burden of proof is on whichever side disagrees with you.I mean yes which is why I wrote yes. It's not my fault you asked a question with two different clauses. I answered both clauses and explained my reasoning.
It's not an analogy, it is the traditional understanding of what marriage is which is what is under discussion. That'll be a yes to that one, then. Thanks.1) You might be correct, if your "key features of traditional marriage" were requirements for marriage. Since they aren't, your analogy is a false one.
Can close relatives not love each other? Can immature people not love each other? Can three people not all love each other?2) I actually believe that two people for life, with the exclusion of close relatives and the mentally incompetent, is an excellent requirement for an institution designed primarily to provide a context for the partners to express their love to each other.
No they aren't, because governments recognised marriages long before those benefits were given.1) Those benefits are the reasons why government recognizes marriage. If those benefits were not in question, there would be no reason for governments to recognize marriage.
No you haven't.2) I've still provided more support for my position than you have for yours.
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?