Assuming that the US isn't a Theocracy...

[TracerBullet]

This topic once again demonstrates that when it comes right down to it, there is no reason outside of religious prejudice to disallow gay marriage.

BINGO

 

[ChristianCenturion]

I would enjoy seeing one US state law that does so. As far as other countries, eh, we aren't really talking about them.

My statement was more of a precautionary for your benefit. I'm not familiar with every state's law, but I do know that the laws vary from state to state and in the U.S. it is a State issue. I am also not disillusioned in thinking that any given society can not have a law that doesn't suit everyone's litmus test. So if an examined state wishes to have a law that doesn't suit your or my requirements or standards, it doesn't equate that the law is void or wrong.

So over-generalized statements do usually end up coming back to bite you once in a while.

Incidentally and since it is of interest for you, the issue of child-rearing and procreation was a reason for one State's law for marriage, but since there was a error in claiming that as being the only reasoning for one man and one woman, the state of Vermont was forced to include civil unions for same-gender couplings.

Excerpt~
The court said the principal purpose advanced by the state in support of excluding same-sex couples from the legal benefits of marriage is the government's interest in promoting the link between procreation and child-rearing. However, many opposite-sex couples marry for reasons unrelated to procreation, and either cannot or do not wish to have children, the court observed. Therefore, the court reasoned, if the purpose of the statutory exclusion of same-sex couples is to further the link between procreation and child-rearing, it is under-inclusive since the law extends the benefits of marriage to many persons with no logical connection to the stated governmental goal.

Seriously, the point being made is that somehow the creation and raising of children is part of the "social contract" of marriage. By social contract, I assume it is meant the contract between the married couple and society, i.e. the laws governing marriage. I have made a counter claim that marriage is not a social contract "to raise children within families" but instead is a social contract to "manage resources". I present my states statutes as an affirmative defense to my claim and as an corresponding example where the other claim is false. I would welcome such an example on the other side but doubt one can be found. At any rate, the other side should at least provide some evidence to support their claim.

I did above and I'll point out the obvious in that your State does not equate the U.S.
I'll also add to your assertion by pointing out that your submission does not exclude child-rearing and/or procreation as being at least PART of any body of government's reasoning (note that reasons do not require a singular factor).

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Logical fallacy

• Two Wrongs Make A Right (Tu Quoque, You Too):

a charge of wrongdoing is answered by a rationalization that others have sinned, or might have sinned. For example, Bill borrows Jane's expensive pen, and later finds he hasn't returned it. He tells himself that it is okay to keep it, since she would have taken his.
War atrocities and terrorism are often defended in this way.
Similarly, some people defend capital punishment on the grounds that the state is killing people who have killed.
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#you_too

what other countries may or may not do is not a justification for discrimination.

Perhaps if I had said that, your reference would have relevance.
But I didn't.
The request was socratic questioning to point out the obvious fact that governments have definition for marriages and these claims that any condition where a group would not be included in such a marriage definition (i.e. marriage remaining undefined and fully inclusive) is one straight out of Utopian fantasy.

And by this logic (again that word) racism has legitimate secular reasoning as many states had popularly mandated segregation laws

Perhaps you mistaken me for one trying to advocate that Secularism equates good laws.
The OP doesn't ask for a "good" (subjective) secular reasoning. But thanks for pointing out that secular laws can exist, don't equate right, and don't require "good reasons". Kind of underlines that the request and value in Secularism in and of itself is sort of worthless.

Yet there is no difference in the arguments made today in support of discrimination and the arguments made a generation ago in support of discrimination. there existed no justification for the banning of interracial marriage beyond hatred, just as there is no justification for the banning of same sex marriage beyond hatred.

More of the same empty claims only to slander any and all groups not elevating same-gender coupling.
Too bad your statements above about discrimination, hate, prejudice, etc. can't segregate those same statements from its obvious hypocrisy.
You might want to re-read your submission of Two Wrongs fallacy and recognize that discrimination, hate, prejudice, and so on against any religious group not sharing the ideology exalting same-sex acts is convicted by that claim of "no difference." Not that I agree with your statements, simply that it is self-condemning.

I suppose this is common enough when the ability to justify one ideology on its own merits fails and is left to use a non sequitur for legitimization and slur all opposition.
That IS what we so often see.
Pointing to a racial issue in a desire and behavior discussion only to follow with the anti-religion, anti-Christian, anti-whatever besmirching rhetoric.

 

[morningstar2651]

Amd that your religion has no place in law-making, why should gay marriage be banned?

Since the debate seems to be meandering a bit off topic into semantics, perhaps now would be a good time to rephrase the OP.

Apart from religious reasons, why should marriage be defined as between one man and one woman only?

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Since the debate seems to be meandering a bit off topic into semantics, perhaps now would be a good time to rephrase the OP.

Apart from religious reasons, why should marriage be defined as between one man and one woman only?

Hey morningstar2651, it has been a while.

If you have read the thread, you would see that reasons have already been given. They just get denied or avoided like the plague.

Some of the reasons have been given even by those that didn't realize or intend to give a secular reason.

You see one poster tried arguing against the yuck factor (or something like it) and yet didn't realize that if a society viewed an act distasteful, immoral, disgusting, etc. that same society has every right to have laws reflecting its morality, values, etc. as long as it wasn't contradicting more of the same from that society.

In the Secularist advocacy, people seem to forget that morality is decided by the given society or a given standard valued by the society. So if it is a yuck reason, what alleged dictate rules that society is immoral for not embracing or promoting the yuck?

 

[morningstar2651]

Hey morningstar2651, it has been a while.

If you have read the thread, you would see that reasons have already been given. They just get denied or avoided like the plague.

Some of the reasons have been given even by those that didn't realize or intend to give a secular reason.

You see one poster tried arguing against the yuck factor (or something like it) and yet didn't realize that if a society viewed an act distasteful, immoral, disgusting, etc. that same society has every right to have laws reflecting its morality, values, etc. as long as it wasn't contradicting more of the same from that society.

In the Secularist advocacy, people seem to forget that morality is decided by the given society or a given standard valued by the society. So if it is a yuck reason, what alleged dictate rules that society is immoral for not embracing or promoting the yuck?

Wow, it has been a while!

We're raising some interesting questions here. What is the purpose of law? Are law and morality seperate or connected? Is it right to legislate tastefulness?

According to these various poll results, less than 50% of people oppose legal recognition of same sex couples. Do these statistics warrant legislation in either direction?

 

[SimplyMe]

Sorry, but your claim that someone was upset is lost when realizing comparison and contrasting is a legitimate and common discussion/debate procedure.
Please consider the presumption to speak on my behalf corrected.

I was interpreting the tone (apparently wrongly) in your post, not trying to speak on your behalf. If I misunderstood your mood, I apologize. As I think most here have found, "hearing" the tone of words can be extremely hard. Perhaps next time rather than playing this game you could just tell me that I misunderstood rather than being so presumptuous as to speak on my behalf. Last I knew two wrongs don't make a right. Fair enough?

Do the citizens have a right to representation as long as it is within Constitutional parameters or not?

Citizens have had to clearly define their Constitution in response to attempts at forcing a special interest via the Judicial branch in the U.S. since Hawaii in 1993. It isn't anything new and is how due process and checks/balances handle issues like this.
So what?

Rather disingenuous; actually citizens have had to define their constitution for decades. Members of the KKK would talk about how "special interests" in the Black community have forced their agenda through the courts over 60 years ago. I've seen any number of groups trying to force their "special interests" via the Judicial branch, including conservative Christians.

Yet this did not answer the question; especially since you have mentioned the checks and balances. So again: What Rights would be violated by the government allowing same-sex marriages?

Just how much effort are you expecting me to give in replying to a complaint over a comparison/contrast?
Just because someone can fabricate a hypothetical, flawed or not, doesn't mean that people are forbidden to reference reality, fact, or even that a hypothetical must not have connection with possible reality.

Unless you've got something that shows how referencing reality or current conditions is some sort of no-no during discussion/debate, I hear your complaint but don't consider it worth much more of my time.

Except, in this case it's easy to take the hypothetical and turn in into a real world question: What non-religious reasons are there for banning gay marriage?

 

[RavenPoe]

Are we to have mob rule here in the US? Just because the majority feels a certain way does not make it right. I cannot accept that a law is voted in by the populace as it being just. Once upon a time I'm sure segragation would have been (has been?) supported by the vote, yet it was obviously wrong.

No one is forcing anyone else to post in this thread. If you do not like the content of the OP, there are plenty more out there.

Sure every "reason" presented has not been accepted. None have been deemed to be valid by the opposition, and they remain unconvinced. Feel free to try harder to do so in future posts.

I an for same sex marriage because I look at marriage as a commitment between two people to take care of each other through life, and the law provides benefits that facilitate this. Kids are sometimes a side effect, not the cause.

 

[Morcova]

Yet at the same time, there is an ignoring of the fact that the citizens petitioning, voting on and passing an Amendment stating they collectively are willing to promote a specific model IS a secular reason.

The majority doesn't have the right to vote away the rights of the minority.

Sorry.

 

[Morcova]

Perhaps you might not wish to speak so generally as if it applies to every society's laws.
All one needs do is provide one law that references raising children.

It would be foolish to assume that he was refering to every societies laws. It's obvious from the title of the thread that we are only discussing the US.

 

[nvxplorer]

Sorry, but I'm not a Dictator of the U.S.A.

Forming an argument makes one a dictator?

I did not give the reason that you claim I did.

You didn't write this?

Other than one's personal issues with homoerotic desires, equally immoral behavior, ignorance and/or misplaced emotion captivity for those that are caught up in such, I see no reason, anywhere that I or anyone else needs to endorse it.

How is that not an argument from morality? "Equally immoral behavior." It's there. You wrote it.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

I was interpreting the tone (apparently wrongly) in your post, not trying to speak on your behalf. If I misunderstood your mood, I apologize. As I think most here have found, "hearing" the tone of words can be extremely hard. Perhaps next time rather than playing this game you could just tell me that I misunderstood rather than being so presumptuous as to speak on my behalf. Last I knew two wrongs don't make a right. Fair enough?

Your statements read as conflicted.
Are you apologizing for attempting to be an authority on my emotional state or are you trying to lecture the one it was directed at in claiming they have no right to correct such presumption?

No, it isn't "fair enough" to say that a correction to a wrong is a wrong. But I'll drop this further attempt and accept the apology.
Issue closed.

Rather disingenuous; actually citizens have had to define their constitution for decades. Members of the KKK would talk about how "special interests" in the Black community have forced their agenda through the courts over 60 years ago. I've seen any number of groups trying to force their "special interests" via the Judicial branch, including conservative Christians.

I suppose that would be a yes then.

Yet this did not answer the question; especially since you have mentioned the checks and balances. So again: What Rights would be violated by the government allowing same-sex marriages?

I don't seem to find it difficult to understand.
I and other citizens don't need to promote an immoral and unworthy model of marriage. Claims that the citizens don't have a say in the matter are empty in light of the fact that this is confirmed by current and continued change in law and the lack of evidence supporting the notion that the majority of citizens can and should be forced to do so.

Except, in this case it's easy to take the hypothetical and turn in into a real world question: What non-religious reasons are there for banning gay marriage?

Why should I add to the list of the usual talking points when the few already submitted are good enough and have yet to see a credible rebut?
The fact remains that even IF nobody entertained the request from the start, it doesn't equate that the U.S. should enact a law simply because a few want a new law.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Forming an argument makes one a dictator?

You didn't write this?

Other than one's personal issues with homoerotic desires, equally immoral behavior, ignorance and/or misplaced emotion captivity for those that are caught up in such, I see no reason, anywhere that I or anyone else needs to endorse it.

How is that not an argument from morality? "Equally immoral behavior." It's there. You wrote it.

Perhaps I missed something.
I thought the OP was discussing the U.S.

You do realize that when someone references a viewpoint, it is compared or contrasted with the whole in a Democracy, don't you?
Your post claimed something untrue, but it is understandable seeing as you limited your observations to only one of my posts mirroring a response to a post making an assertion.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

The majority doesn't have the right to vote away the rights of the minority.

Sorry.

Arguing against what wasn't asserted?

It would be foolish to assume that he was refering to every societies laws. It's obvious from the title of the thread that we are only discussing the US.

That has been already been clarified, but here in the U.S. marriage is a State issue and the laws vary from state to state. I've said that already.

 

[gengwall]

The other thread is kind of dying down so I'll continue my line of thought here. I had an epiphany last night driving home. There does in fact exist a "social contract to raise children within families" but it isn't "marriage", it's "parenting". There are gobs of laws that govern the who, what, where, and when of parenting. Those are the laws ("social contract") related to raising (and creating) children within families.

Now, an interesting point about laws regarding parenting - they never presume or require marriage. Marriage is irrelevant when it comes to parenting (maybe not practically, but legally), just like child rearing is irrelevant when it comes to marriage. Although any particular person may indeed be subject to both sets of laws, they are in reality completely unrelated.

So, again, marriage does not presume or require child bearing or rearing. To claim that child rearing is a reason for the social contract of marriage when the actual contract itself never references child rearing is simply illogical. As everyone knows, if it ain't in the contract, it ain't part of the deal.

 

[KCDAD]

The other thread is kind of dying down so I'll continue my line of thought here. I had an epiphany last night driving home. There does in fact exist a "social contract to raise children within families" but it isn't "marriage", it's "parenting". There are gobs of laws that govern the who, what, where, and when of parenting. Those are the laws ("social contract") related to raising (and creating) children within families.

Now, an interesting point about laws regarding parenting - they never presume or require marriage. Marriage is irrelevant when it comes to parenting (maybe not practically, but legally), just like child rearing is irrelevant when it comes to marriage. Although any particular person may indeed be subject to both sets of laws, they are in reality completely unrelated.

So, again, marriage does not presume or require child bearing or rearing. To claim that child rearing is a reason for the social contract of marriage when the actual contract itself never references child rearing is simply illogical. As everyone knows, if it ain't in the contract, it ain't part of the deal.

I think you are right, however, what marriage does is allow the civil government to bestow benefits on those members of society that provide parenting environments for children. Given that marriage is intended to be a lifelong committment to raise a family... since this is not the case... perhaps there is an argument to be made to take away ALL benefits for marriage.

 

[SimplyMe]

I don't seem to find it difficult to understand.
I and other citizens don't need to promote an immoral and unworthy model of marriage.

I'm sorry, I know of no Right to not be offended by government actions or laws. Should Christians be offended by the United States having free religion, after all, that goes against the first of the Ten Commandments?

The fact is that the United States has laws allowing many things that Christians consider "immoral", the only time I seem to hear the argument that law is an "endorsement" is when it comes to gay marriage. Why aren't you far more offended that, per your argument, you "endorse" easy divorce, gambling, abortion, adultery (while a few states still have laws on the books, they are no longer enforced), etc.

Further, your view of gay marriage as "immoral and unworthy" is based on your religion. That alone disqualifies it as being a non-religious reason.

Claims that the citizens don't have a say in the matter are empty in light of the fact that this is confirmed by current and continued change in law and the lack of evidence supporting the notion that the majority of citizens can and should be forced to do so.

Sure, the citizens have a say in the law; I don't believe anyone has claimed differently. I don't think anyone has said that the citizens who have voted on Constitutional Amendments did not have that right. While they may disagree with those who vote for these amendments, that is no different than your disagreeing with those who vote against these amendments.

The U.S. Supreme Court does have the right to overturn current marriage laws and, if they feel it warranted, even your state's constitutional amendments. Citizens are also free to pass constitutional amendments regardless of what the judiciary might do. As you've said, this is just the checks and balances in the system.

Why should I add to the list of the usual talking points when the few already submitted are good enough and have yet to see a credible rebut?
The fact remains that even IF nobody entertained the request from the start, it doesn't equate that the U.S. should enact a law simply because a few want a new law.

What reasons? That the majority has the right to ban it; that isn't a reason and, even if it were, it's just an argumentum ad populum. That it is "immoral and unworthy"? That isn't an argument it's a sound bite, it is simply personal opinion based on your religious ideas. That it's being done to "protect marriage" -- again this is a sound bite and not a reason, no supporting evidence has been provided -- not even showing that gay marriage is in any way a threat to anything other than what you want marriage defined as (which again, is defined by your religious belief). All your "reasons" thus far appear to be nothing more than personal opinion, and even then are directly tied to religion and so not a reason per the OP.

 

[gengwall]

I think you are right, however, what marriage does is allow the civil government to bestow benefits on those members of society that provide parenting environments for children.

Well, I respectfully disagree. The fact that marriages may provide parenting environments (and they are not the only relationships that do) seems to be lost on the law. The benefits bestowed on people because of their marriage in no way impacts this environment. In other words, there is nothing in marriage law promoting or even recognizing "parenting environment". Parenting itself, is unreferenced in marriage law. It is, of course, referenced often in parenting laws, but those laws show no recognition or prerequisite of marriage. I still contend the two areas - marriage and parenting - are distinct and mutually exclusive sections of the law.

Given that marriage is intended to be a lifelong committment to raise a family... since this is not the case... perhaps there is an argument to be made to take away ALL benefits for marriage.

Well, I have heard that cry from people as well.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

I'm sorry, I know of no Right to not be offended by government actions or laws. Should Christians be offended by the United States having free religion, after all, that goes against the first of the Ten Commandments?

Perhaps you might wish to argue against what I said and not your strawman.
I made no such reference about a right to not be offended, I was referring to forced endorsement. There is a difference, just like there is a difference between representation and dictatorship.

The fact is that the United States has laws allowing many things that Christians consider "immoral", the only time I seem to hear the argument that law is an "endorsement" is when it comes to gay marriage. Why aren't you far more offended that, per your argument, you "endorse" easy divorce, gambling, abortion, adultery (while a few states still have laws on the books, they are no longer enforced), etc.

I didn't say my positions on those OTHER issues, so I suppose this is more presumption about what may or may not offend.
This topic is on same-gender marriage, so I'll be addressing that. I suppose if you are wanting my input on those other issues, you can look for my posting in those topics.

Further, your view of gay marriage as "immoral and unworthy" is based on your religion. That alone disqualifies it as being a non-religious reason.

Just as the other poster attempted, nope. I really don't know where people are getting this premise that the only possible use of the word moral is restricted to the religious context, but it is wrong.

Immoral and unworthy might have religious reasons and use, but it is far from being exclusive to that.
I'll go ahead and do the favor of posting what immoral and unworthy means :

Immoral~
: not moral; broadly : conflicting with generally or traditionally held moral principles

Moral~
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin moralis, from mor-, mos custom
1 a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : [SIZE=-1]ETHICAL[/SIZE] <moral judgments> b : expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior <a moral poem> c : conforming to a standard of right behavior d : sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment <a moral obligation> e : capable of right and wrong action <a moral agent>
2 : probable though not proved : [SIZE=-1]VIRTUAL[/SIZE] <a moral certainty>
3 : perceptual or psychological rather than tangible or practical in nature or effect <a moral victory> <moral support>

Unworthy~
Function: adjective
1 a : lacking in excellence or value : [SIZE=-1]POOR[/SIZE], [SIZE=-1]WORTHLESS[/SIZE] b : [SIZE=-1]BASE[/SIZE], [SIZE=-1]DISHONORABLE[/SIZE]
2 : not meritorious : [SIZE=-1]UNDESERVING[/SIZE] <unworthy of attention>
3 : not deserved : [SIZE=-1]UNMERITED[/SIZE] <unworthy treatment>
4 : inappropriate to one's condition or station <actions unworthy of a gentleman>


Now you may go ahead and prove that using those terms are exclusive to religious context or "my religious basis". I have a few Agnostic and Atheist friends currently near me that view the same-gender acts as immoral & unworthy and they too would be VERY interested in seeing someone attempt to tell them that their reasons are because of their faith.

Sure, the citizens have a say in the law; I don't believe anyone has claimed differently. I don't think anyone has said that the citizens who have voted on Constitutional Amendments did not have that right. While they may disagree with those who vote for these amendments, that is no different than your disagreeing with those who vote against these amendments.

So you don't believe anyone has said such.

I must be reading a different thread... or perhaps it would be safer to say that YOU have not said such.

The U.S. Supreme Court does have the right to overturn current marriage laws and, if they feel it warranted, even your state's constitutional amendments. Citizens are also free to pass constitutional amendments regardless of what the judiciary might do. As you've said, this is just the checks and balances in the system.


What reasons? That the majority has the right to ban it; that isn't a reason and, even if it were, it's just an argumentum ad populum. That it is "immoral and unworthy"? That isn't an argument it's a sound bite, it is simply personal opinion based on your religious ideas. That it's being done to "protect marriage" -- again this is a sound bite and not a reason, no supporting evidence has been provided -- not even showing that gay marriage is in any way a threat to anything other than what you want marriage defined as (which again, is defined by your religious belief). All your "reasons" thus far appear to be nothing more than personal opinion, and even then are directly tied to religion and so not a reason per the OP.

Your statements are conflicted.
You first acknowledge that people have a role in government, that there is due process, legitimate government ability, seemingly don't attempt to argue that all the citizens are representing a religion... only to later claim that the same citizens doing so is a fallacy and wrong.
I hope you get that conflict straightened out.

 

[selfinflikted]

While you certainly have an eloquency with the english language that of which I'm admittedly jealous Christian Centurion, when you boil off all the fluff of everything you've posted here you're not left with a whole lot. You are side-stepping every question posited, and are hand-waving it away with a lot of mumbo-jumbo fluff. If you can't answer a simple question directly, then just don't answer.. it's really simple and I suggest trying it.