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

[nvxplorer]

You demand a "reason" that can only be answered by every citizen that voted on such an amendment.

To say that every citizen's reason(s) were the same is not intellectually plausible and violates the principle of a Democracy that brought it to a vote in the FIRST PLACE.

Someone will have to let me know when the U.S. requires its citizens to give essays detailing their individual reasoning for every vote they cast.
Until such time, I'm not impressed by claims of the ESP required to speak for such a vast number and in such absolute.

Surely there was much debate on the amendment. I'm certain that reasoning can be found in legislative sessions, from pundits and private citizens.

This is irrelevant anyway. You provided the written amendment as an argument. As noted by many of us, the amendment as written, is seriously lacking as an argument. Feel free to offer your argument supporting the amendment.

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.

Here we go. If this is intended to be a secular argument, it fails. Your use of the word "immoral" suggests that it is not secular, but assuming it is, constitutions are not intended to "protect" you from witnessing activity you deem repugnant. In protecting rights for all, no one is expected to endorse anything.

By the way, racial does not mean what someone does as a sexual practice. So while some might cling to that attempt, don't be too suprised to find that the interracial comparison only insults and alienates much of racial populace.

On the contrary, it is perfectly relevant. People then and now consider interracial marriage to be "disgusting," just as you consider homosexuality to be disgusting. Thankfully, rights are not granted based on people's tolerance for "disgust."

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Well, I agree in this for certain, that SCOTUS needs to decide if there are equal protection violations or not. They certainly are better versed on the constitution than I and are better at explaining why I might be wrong.

As far as the argument from ignorance goes, you are simply using that as a red herring to avoid the OP. The OP is entitled to the question regardless of how ridiculous or fallacious you think the question is. If you don't want to get sucked into something you feel is a logical fallacy, then don't play. But instead of addressing the question at hand, you seem to be arguing that the question should never have been asked.

Correction.
In discussion and even in debate, the burden is not on "only one side". When that one-sided obligation is attempted, I and others will rationally only exert "so much" before a call is made to start filling up that bag on the other side.

As it is, I've given a simple and practical reason and what I'm receiving as a rebut is "no its not".
I'm not inclined to go farther when what I've got is an attempt to hold me accountable to any desire to deny. Perhaps if I start seeing a motivation, I'll go further. Otherwise, this is the same thing we always see 'round here.

The question remains, "is there a non-religious argument". The fact that a group of people voted for "x" is not in and of itself a factual argument supporting "x". This actually smacks of moral relativism, something I'm sure you would not intend to employ.

Actually, it is moral relativism.
But then again, that is the secular way most nations work these days. While I might not desire that as the conditions (I do desire and believe in a return by my Lord after all ), it is the world that I find myself.

But just in case, please don't make the error in going another step and assuming that I place my trust in such relativism. It is merely a state of circumstances that I find myself in while at the same time I am afforded Rights and representation. If you know anything about the book of Acts, you will find that this is not a new thing for believers and a well-known Disciple exercised his civil Rights as his conscience and the Spirit dictated. My faith is not directed by government, by freedom or even lack of such - such as slavery though. But I do have a duty to be faithful regardless of how the world is functioning around me.

 

[SimplyMe]

What exactly about a definition having a qualified and not qualified grouping gave you the misunderstanding of misdirection? It seems simple and common enough principle to me, but then again I don't presume to call the definition of say senior citizen a "banning" of teenagers or the definition of marriage in a State's Constitution a "banning" of people gathering together for a ceremony and exchanging promises to one another.
You do realize that gays have been "married" by Pagan religious figures in Hand Fasting ceremonies and have not been thrown in jail, don't you?

Except, your statement of marriage requiring a man and a woman has no limits, therefore it is banning everything that disagrees with it, including those who then think they marry in a church. Since you don't have the power to define "marriage", however, it seems we are playing pointless word games.

So I'll not dance around the bush on that. Even the one man and one woman definition isn't a "ban" on the ability for gays to "marry". At least I'm not having a problem acknowledging the fact of what is being promoted in the gay advocacy rhetoric is a desire that the citizens (whether or not they consent to it or have their Rights violated) promote, endorse, grant incentives, etc. toward same-gender couplings.

Yet, given the OP and to remain on topic, it would seem obvious that we are talking of legal definitions and recognition. Funny how you were upset at the OP for asking a question that isn't consistent with United States Constitution and law but you then choose to argue the question in a way that isn't consistent, either.

And perhaps I misunderstand your comment in the parenthesis, but what Rights would be violated by the government allowing same-sex marriages?

I suppose the notion that a hypothetical not having the ability to be flawed is a new one for me.

Then I would assume you've never participated in many hypothetical debates before, especially when you consider that one of the definitions is, "Existing only in concept and not in reality". In fact, I've seen many of these types of hypotheticals on these boards, such as what if what if Hitler had been aborted, what if Christ were to come today, What if America was a Christian Theocracy, etc.

Lots of things emphasize "appearances" - propaganda, superficiality, deception, etc.
Sorry, but I'm not automatically obligated due to any and all other's presumption(s).

I never claimed you were.

 

[gengwall]

But just in case, please don't make the error in going another step and assuming that I place my trust in such relativism. It is merely a state of circumstances that I find myself in while at the same time I am afforded Rights and representation. If you know anything about the book of Acts, you will find that this is not a new thing for believers and a well-known Disciple exercised his civil Rights as his conscience and the Spirit dictated. My faith is not directed by government, by freedom or even lack of such - such as slavery though. But I do have a duty to be faithful regardless of how the world is functioning around me.

That is a step I most assuredly would not take.

 

[Arnold_Philips]

There is no extra-religious reason to ban gay nuptials.

 

[nvxplorer]

As it is, I've given a simple and practical reason

The only reason you've given is that you consider homosexuality to be immoral. This may be simple, but stating that it's immoral does not describe how banning gay marriage is practical.

and what I'm receiving as a rebut is "no its not".

No, what you're receiving are requests to explain your position from a secular standpoint. Thus far, you have failed to do so.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Except, your statement of marriage requiring a man and a woman has no limits, therefore it is banning everything that disagrees with it, including those who then think they marry in a church. Since you don't have the power to define "marriage", however, it seems we are playing pointless word games.


Yet, given the OP and to remain on topic, it would seem obvious that we are talking of legal definitions and recognition. Funny how you were upset at the OP for asking a question that isn't consistent with United States Constitution and law but you then choose to argue the question in a way that isn't consistent, either.

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.

And perhaps I misunderstand your comment in the parenthesis, but what Rights would be violated by the government allowing same-sex marriages?

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.

Then I would assume you've never participated in many hypothetical debates before, especially when you consider that one of the definitions is, "Existing only in concept and not in reality". In fact, I've seen many of these types of hypotheticals on these boards, such as what if what if Hitler had been aborted, what if Christ were to come today, What if America was a Christian Theocracy, etc.

So what?

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.

I never claimed you were.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

The only reason you've given is that you consider homosexuality to be immoral. This may be simple, but stating that it's immoral does not describe how banning gay marriage is practical.

Sorry, but I'm not a Dictator of the U.S.A.
I did not give the reason that you claim I did.

No, what you're receiving are requests to explain your position from a secular standpoint. Thus far, you have failed to do so.

I'm fine with what I posted.
Claiming that it isn't there doesn't prevent people from reading it and deciding for their self.

 

[KCDAD]

Because marriage is a social contract to raise children within families and by definition marriage is a male and a female who are husband and wife. Read the 1996 law Bill Clinton signed into law.

 

[gengwall]

Because marriage is a social contract to raise children within families and by definition marriage is a male and a female who are husband and wife. Read the 1996 law Bill Clinton signed into law.

Is there a link to the law you refer to?

In the civil sense, marriage is not a contract "to raise children within families", it is a contract to manage shared resources and the distribution of the same if the marriage ends through divorce or death. As a contract, the law is silent on both the creation of and raising of children. It only addresses distribution of children upon dissolvement of the marriage and in that aspect, has nothing to do with the genders of the participants in the marriage.

 

[gengwall]

Here is the table of contents from MN Statues Chapter
517 - Marriage

Section 517.0001 Application Of Laws 2005, Chapter 56, Terminology Changes.
Section 517.001 Definition.
Section 517.01 Marriage A Civil Contract.
Section 517.02 Persons Capable Of Contracting.
Section 517.03 Prohibited Marriages.
Section 517.04 Solemnization.
Section 517.041 Power To Appoint Court Commissioner; Duty.
Section 517.05 Credentials Of Minister.
Section 517.06 Parties Examined.
Section 517.07 License.
Section 517.071 Repealed, 1978 c 699 s 17
Section 517.08 Application For License.
Section 517.09 Solemnization.
Section 517.10 Certificate; Witnesses.
Section 517.101 Certified Copies Of Marriage Certificate.
Section 517.11 Repealed, 1951 c 700 s 5
Section 517.12 Repealed, 1951 c 700 s 5
Section 517.13 Penalty For Failure To Deliver And File Certificate.
Section 517.14 Illegal Marriage; False Certificate; Penalty.
Section 517.15 Unauthorized Person Performing Ceremony.
Section 517.16 Immaterial Irregularity Of Officiating Person Does Not Void.
Section 517.17 Repealed, 1978 c 772 s 63
Section 517.18 Marriage Solemnization.
Section 517.19 Repealed, 1980 c 589 s 38
Section 517.20 Application.
Section 517.21 American Family Day.

and Chapter 519 - Married Persons; rights priviledges:

Section 519.01 Separate Legal Existence.
Section 519.02 Property Rights.
Section 519.03 Responsible For Torts And Bound By Contract.
Section 519.04 Property Acquired By Wife During Separation; Conveyances.
Section 519.05 Liability Of Husband And Wife.
Section 519.06 Contracts Between Husband And Wife.
Section 519.07 Barring Interest Of Spouse; Rights Reciprocal.
Section 519.08 Repealed, 1979 c 67 s 2
Section 519.09 Repealed, 1991 c 144 s 4
Section 519.091 Residual Marital Property Rights Abolished.
Section 519.10 Repealed, 1971 c 25 s 88
Section 519.101 Dower And Curtesy Actions.
Section 519.11 Antenuptial And Postnuptial Contracts.

Not a thing in there about creating or raising children.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Is there a link to the law you refer to?

In the civil sense, marriage is not a contract "to raise children within families", it is a contract to manage shared resources and the distribution of the same if the marriage ends through divorce or death. As a contract, the law is silent on both the creation of and raising of children. It only addresses distribution of children upon dissolvement of the marriage and in that aspect, has nothing to do with the genders of the participants in the marriage.

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.

 

[gengwall]

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.

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

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.

 

[gengwall]

Of coure, this is all a bunch of bouncing between two threads (the above few posts relate much more to http://www.christianforums.com/t421...al-rights-but-the-definition-of-marriage.html). Me thinks we chould consolidate so I don't get all mixed up.

 

[TracerBullet]

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

Even with religion there is no good reason for discrimination

 

[TracerBullet]

Defining a marriage as being between one man and one woman is not banning, it is defining what the citizens are willing to grant incentives or qualifies for recognition... and there are more than just one model that doesn't qualify for it.

By this Logic (if I can use this word here ) interracial marriages were never actually banned…

It has noting to do with “what the citizens are willing to grant” rather it is the desperate attempt to justify discrimination by pretending hate and bigotry are morally acceptable …so long as the majority is doing it.

 

[TracerBullet]

I've highlighted the important word there.

Perhaps you would like to humor a request:
Name one country that recognizes and promotes every possible type of marriage. Any definition will indirectly not include something.

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.

 

[TracerBullet]

Well, fortunately for the given various citizens, they are not held any person's Argument of Ignorance.
I keep seeing that empty claim that some don't see or know of a totally religion-free reason. 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.

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

 

[TracerBullet]

You demand a "reason" that can only be answered by every citizen that voted on such an amendment.

To say that every citizen's reason(s) were the same is not intellectually plausible and violates the principle of a Democracy that brought it to a vote in the FIRST PLACE.

Someone will have to let me know when the U.S. requires its citizens to give essays detailing their individual reasoning for every vote they cast.
Until such time, I'm not impressed by claims of the ESP required to speak for such a vast number and in such absolute.


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.

By the way, racial does not mean what someone does as a sexual practice. So while some might cling to that attempt, don't be too suprised to find that the interracial comparison only insults and alienates much of racial populace.

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.

 

[MJ421]

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.