GarfieldJL
Regular Member
All that was asked for was a secular-argument...
It's about the promotion of reproduction.
As to punishing people in a heterosexual marriage for not having kids, the United States isn't a dictatorship.
Upvote
0
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.
Saul would be wasting his time. The main argument presented as a secular argument against same-sex marriage has been the reproduction one, with a high degree of back-pedalling and goalpost-shifting when flaws in the argument are pointed out.
There may well be a convincing secular argument against same-sex marriage. But if there is, it hasn't been presented so far.
There have been many changes in the law since 1972. At the time, homosexuality was illegal and discrimination based on sexual orientation was perfectly legal. Note the following from the Baker decision;Well, I think we've probably both been guilty of misunderstanding what the other was saying, but we try our best to understand correctly, I hope.
I didn't say that homosexuals shouldn't be considered as citizens; I said that marriage shouldn't be considered to be open to same sex couples. Baker v Nelson in 1971 heard exactly the same arguments as were later used to overturn the restriction of marriage to heterosexual couples, but decided that there was no violation of the 14th Amendment. Homosexuals are equally able to marry as heterosexuals; but what was being requested was not a marriage. They explicitly stated that marriage was about procreation, rejected the argument that childless married couples presented a counter-case to this that thereby legitimated SSM, and explicitly disavowed the relevance of Loving v Virginia.
Actually this is not correct. In the late 1990s/early 2000s. many states enacted bans on same-sex marriage through laws or amendments to their state constitutions. That forced the issue into a different prospective.The relevant laws were exactly the same in 1971 as in the 2000s, so if there was a violation of the 14th Amendment in the 2000s there must have been one in the 1970s, yet the courts failed to see it, according to you. Or, more likely, they correctly understood what 'marriage' meant in the statutes when they were drafted, which you have already acknowledged would have been the meaning an intention when they were drafted.
No, it is not. The 14th Amendments applies to any government action that affects US citizens. Bans on same-sex marriage definitely fall under that.For the court (rather than the legislature) to redefine 'marriage' to include same sex couples is as much a misreading of the laws, and just as ridiculous, as for them to redefine 'persons' to include cats.
Well, the majority of US courts that have decided the issue have decided that it is not.That's fine; that is the appropriate place for laws to be changed. The question I am dealing with in this thread is whether it is legitimate for the traditional definition of marriage to be retained without violating the constitution.
That's the problem though isn't it? Most people tend to think that if judges don't rule the way the believe they should, then they are overstepping their role. In the US those judges get labeled "activist judges".What are we dealing with here if not different people's opinions? I have mine, you have yours, Supreme Court Justices have theirs - though if they bring their opinions into their legal judgements instead of sticking to legal facts then they are overstepping their proper role.
And yet when asked what that form would be, you said it wouldn't have existed. Not existing is not a different form of something.Yes I can. I am suggesting that marriage came about in order to provide an optimal context for child-rearing. The question of what would have happened if marriage had not originated for that reason is a counterfactual, so can be susceptible to multiple answers. I think most likely there would have been nothing like marriage, but if there had been it would have had a different form.
If by change you mean expand, then OK. But the definition of marriage has expanded and contracted a lot through the years.In whose understanding? It has only come to be understood that way because some judges have changed the definition of marriage.
But to overcome the Constitutional concerns, that justification must be logical and (mostly) consistent in its application. Bans on SSM justifed by the idea of procreation don't meet that standard.I'm moving past some of your other points, since I think we've argued them out already and I'm not sure that a tis-tisn't-tis-tisn't battle is really getting us anywhere.
The real question is whether a legislature could have reasonable grounds for deciding to restrict marriage to heterosexual couples.
In legalising SSM, the state is effectively endorsing homosexual relationships at being of equivalent status and value to heterosexual ones. If the legislature feels that they are not of the same value, it would be justified in enacting a ban on SSM.
The problem with this line of thinking regarding smoking is that while the government allegedly shows a moral disapproval of smoking, smoking is still legal. Even where smoking is banned in certain locations, those bans are based on the potential harm smoking can do to other people, not the smokers themselves.I note that the US tradition is that morality should be up to the individual; the state should maintain a moral neutrality as far as possible. However, the state cannot remain morally neutral on everything, and there are some things that are prohibited because they offend against a sense of morality. Prostitution and public nudity would be a couple of examples. The government's attitude towards smoking would be another good example of something that is not strictly prohibited but the government clearly shows a moral disapproval of it through its actions.
Wrong. Pedophilia most definitely can lead to reproduction.Homosexuality could be regarded as a disordered form of human sexuality (I'm not saying I have proved or am going to try to prove it, but that a person could reasonably hold the opinion that it is.) We recognise other forms of disordered sexuality, such as paedophilia, necrophila and zoophila. These have in common the fact that they cannot lead to reproduction, and therefore homosexuality could reasonably be added to the list.
On what secular reasoning could a person hold this view of homosexuality?Now, of these other forms, they could be forbidden on the grounds of non-consent (I'm not sure what the position on necrophilia would be if the person had given consent prior to their death for their body to be so used), therefore there is no need to consider banning them on the grounds of being unnatural because there are already other, easier, grounds for banning.
However, a person could reasonably hold the view that homosexual practice should be included in this list, and therefore should be either prohibited or discouraged.
This could lead to two consistent positions: the first would be to say it is such a danger to public morality that homosexual acts should be prohibited outright;
The state doesn't make that distinction between other behaviors such as gambling or drinking. Why should it do so for homosexuality?the other would be to say that the presence of consent means that the act should be permitted, but the state's need to discourage that behaviour warrants its taking action to show that the state does not approve of this behaviour, which would include not giving SSM the same status as heterosexual marriage.
Most Americans dislike anything that smacks of "separate but equal". "Separate and unequal" is even worse.This could be done by refusing to recognise partnerships at all, or by creating an alternative form of partnership that fell short of marriage.
That's where your hypothetical fails because it is neither logical or consistent. The only way it to change that would be to also prohibiting those who cannot, or choose not, to have children from being married as well.If the legislature were to hold the view that homosexuality is a disordered form of human sexuality and as such should not be endorsed by the state, an opinion that could reasonably be held on the grounds that normal sexuality should be directed towards relationships where reproduction is possible at least in principle, then they would be justified in enacting a 'Defence of Marriage' type act or constitutional amendment.
You need to provide justification for the claim that the reason government recognizes marriages is to promote reproduction. As reproduction will happen regardless of marriage status or the governments recognition of such, that is going to be a very high bar to clear.All that was asked for was a secular-argument...
It's about the promotion of reproduction.
All that was asked for was a secular-argument...
It's about the promotion of reproduction.
As to punishing people in a heterosexual marriage for not having kids, the United States isn't a dictatorship.
Without wanting to make too nationalistic a point, that's a very American way of thinking, as I am coming to learn (it was an American who told me this, otherwise I wouldn't feel able to say so). From a British point of view, however hotly contested an issue is, I think we care about having it settled in the right way by the right people in the right forum. We now have SSM in the UK. I think that was a mistake; but at least it was settled properly. On euthanasia, for which I have some sympathies, the courts refused to rule on that because they said, rightly, that it was a matter for parliament to decide, since the existing legislation did not cover it.Queller said:Most people tend to think that if judges don't rule the way the believe they should, then they are overstepping their role. In the US those judges get labeled "activist judges".
Popular definitions may have expanded and contracted, but judges should be concentrating on legal practice; and in US common law there was no precedent for understanding marriage to be other than the union of a man with a woman.If by change you mean expand, then OK. But the definition of marriage has expanded and contracted a lot through the years.
Tobacco-specific taxes and restrictions on advertising show a moral judgement is being made to discourage smoking... you can't convince me that there is no morality underlying those approaches.The problem with this line of thinking regarding smoking is that while the government allegedly shows a moral disapproval of smoking, smoking is still legal. Even where smoking is banned in certain locations, those bans are based on the potential harm smoking can do to other people, not the smokers themselves.
Although it is popular to define paedophilia to include any underage sex, technically it refers to sexual desire for children before they are sexually mature (ie. capable of reproducing), and therefore by definition if a girl is able to conceive then the act was not paedophilia but simple rape (even if it was committed by someone who is a paedophile). While there may be good reasons for having an age of consent higher than this, I would not regard sexual desire for a girl who is capable of bearing children to be a disordered form of sexuality.Wrong. Pedophilia most definitely can lead to reproduction.
9-Year-Old Girl Gives Birth To Healthy Baby Boy In China
I have given nothing but secular arguments in this thread. The trouble is, you are defining 'secularism' to be 'anything that Queller agrees with'. Well, of course, if this is your definition of secularism, then no argument against homosexuality will ever be sufficient. However, I was participating on this thread with the assumption that the question raised in the OP was asked in good faith, ie. that it held open the possibility that a secular argument could actually be made.On what secular reasoning could a person hold this view of homosexuality?
Personally, if I wasn't against homosexual marriage for moral reasons, I'd be against it for the sole sake of bring against the drivel of society today.
Nice straw man.
Is that not what you just said? Or did I misread you?
A straw man is taking one part of what a person says and trying to make it seem like something else.
You took a tidbit from my post and did exactly that. Way to go.
I am well aware of what a straw man argument is. However, did you or did you not say that you would stand against SSM, if not for a moral reason, because "[you'd] be against it for the sole sake of bring[sic] against the drivel of society today." Implying that gays are the drivel of society?
(if so, you've misused the word "drivel")
With liberals, I see a whole lot of "why not" argumentation.
"Why not" allow homosexual marriage, rather then an argument expounding on why a country should be obligated to ascertain abnormal, extremely uncommon and very controversial marriage.
It seems to be an emotional package then a rational one, the whole country getting bent out of shape and causing problems over hardly 1% of marriage rights.
There are much bigger problems on the subject of marriage that get hardly no attention at all. Until one takes care of that, why should anyone ascertain something that is, in reality, outlandish and unneeded?
Personally, if I wasn't against homosexual marriage for moral reasons, I'd be against it for the sole sake of bring against the drivel of society today.
What I was saying, and what is very evidenced in my post, is that the homosexual movement for marriage itself is a bunch of drivel. There is no logical reason why half of an entire country should be worried about something which does not apply to the 99% of them.
Unless, of course, it is simply the obvious which I believe is true- to simply attack traditional beliefs and customs. That, all in all, it really doesn't have much to do with SSM, but that it's simply the object to bash with.
What I was saying, and what is very evidenced in my post, is that the homosexual movement for marriage itself is a bunch of drivel. There is no logical reason why half of an entire country should be worried about something which does not apply to the 99% of them.
Unless, of course, it is simply the obvious which I believe is true- to simply attack traditional beliefs and customs. That, all in all, it really doesn't have much to do with SSM, but that it's simply the object to bash with.
Then I did, in fact, misunderstand. You have my apologies.
So what if it even only applies to 0.000001%, though? It's still an injustice, and it affects me. So, yes, it's important to me. And you, nor your religion, are important enough to me to "attack." Just FYI.
Homosexual marriage being illegal is not an injustice in relevance to things such as men not being treated fairly in divorce settlements, or the definition of 'assault' steadily becoming that of a breeze of wind, or assessing wills in marriage more carefully.
Things that have real consequences, you see, and pertain to much more then a small minority in which most therein don't even seem to want to get married being that the ratio of marriages and gays in every place it is legal is quite bad.
So n a way, it really is an extreme, extreme minority on exchange for neglecting REAL problems. There is no other reason- no logical premise to go in that direction if it isn't to specifically bash traditional customs and beliefs. Christianity is the foothold altogether in which states where homosexuality is illegal props on.
What you fail to understand about Separation of Church and State is that I don't have to forsake my moral opposition to anything just because it's tapped from my religion. That is not what it means, at all.
What I was saying, and what is very evidenced in my post, is that the homosexual movement for marriage itself is a bunch of drivel. There is no logical reason why half of an entire country should be worried about something which does not apply to the 99% of them.
Unless, of course, it is simply the obvious which I believe is true- to simply attack traditional beliefs and customs. That, all in all, it really doesn't have much to do with SSM, but that it's simply the object to bash with.
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?