toldailytopic: Same-sex marriage: for it, or against it?

[chrysostom]

No, it's not. The purpose of a marriage, in the country where you reside, is to seal a contract between two adults who desire a legally recognized and protected union.

is the purpose of marriage a seal or a contract?

 

[Town Heretic]

is the purpose of marriage a seal or a contract?

"The purpose of a marriage...is to seal a contract between two adults who desire a legally recognized and protected union."

That was a bit awkward. That's what comes of short hand. A bit longer then. Marriage is a contract, a legally binding promise and union between two people. They advance it through the state, the seal of that state accomplishing the new legal entity, guaranteeing certain privileges and rights, and benefits within the union and from the state.

 

[chrysostom]

"The purpose of a marriage...is to seal a contract between two adults who desire a legally recognized and protected union."

That was a bit awkward. That's what comes of short hand. A bit longer then. Marriage is a contract, a legally binding promise and union between two people. They advance it through the state, the seal of that state accomplishing the new legal entity, guaranteeing certain privileges and rights, and benefits within the union and from the state.

what is the purpose of this contract between two people?

 

[Town Heretic]

what is the purpose of this contract between two people?

To create "a legally binding...union" that carries with it "certain privileges and rights, and benefits."

 

[Uberpod1]

To create "a legally binding...union" that carries with it "certain privileges and rights, and benefits."

There may be ways to secure many of these rights by other means than marriage, like wills, health care proxies, various legal filings, but you would incur enormous trouble and expense trying to do so. The average person might not know that many of these rights even exist until they are needed, and by then it may be too late, as in medical decisions/visitation in an emergency.

 

[zippy2006]

Okay. You're mistaken. Your mistaken at law and advocating a dangerous part that I hope will never come within a whisper of reinventing the singular wisdom of our Founding Fathers.

And I'd say you're mistaken both in law and in your interpretation (?) of the Founding Fathers. Odd saying that to a lawyer, but there are enough lawyers of higher rank who disagree with you to be quite honest. You've snipped a large and important part of your life away from God and are trying to justify it by claiming that removing God and His word from the equation leads to justice; it never does, and I find it hard to believe that you do not see that. It's a rather unfortunate mistake that is leading others astray imo.

I will retire into prayer on the topic, in the hope that you will do the same.

:e4e:

 

[zippy2006]

They may, but marriage is different from capable people adopting. Your argument has nothing to do with homosexuals per say, but rather with eligible parties to adopt. I'm guessing such incentives do exist already for people who adopt and help in that way. That's fine; it has nothing to do with marriage.

I'm not sure how you can say this while also saying that marriage benefits are given in large part with children in mind.

Marriage has nothing to do with adoption.
Marriage has a lot to do with procreation.

I see some disconnect between those two statements. :idunno:

Except that's not what I said at all. We do not call an orphanage a "marriage" (whatever that would even mean) because they are in a position to take care of children. Just because marriage is strongly related to procreation and the rearing of children, it does not follow that any party who is capable of raising children (and that point is questionable in the first place) should be called a "marriage."

 

[Uberpod1]

I will retire into prayer on the topic, .

I agree -- that's the best thing for you.

 

[zippy2006]

Well, no, not directly, but that is the prevalent reason that people get married. As far as the state is concerned, all that is required is that the couple intend to be married. With the exception of a small handful of disqualifiers, the most restrictive of which is gender, that's all it takes.

Huh? You're missing the whole point again. Why is the state interested in formally recognizing and conferring benefits on certain couples? Should they give benefits and the like to any grouping of people who "intends to be married"?

You defined marriage as something that they already have

They have the union, but not the legal recognition of it. And lacking the legal recognition, they are forced to live forever tenuous lives.

What does that even mean? You aren't making any argument here, and you're appealing to some kind of odd emotional reason.

It makes perfect sense in the exact context we were just in. You're smart enough to figure it out.

And now you can't be bothered to make your case. You're done.

Another great declaration. :thumb: You're simply smart enough to understand what was said, unlike some of the others around here, so go back and figure it out or feel free to drop it. I was quite clear and made no argumentative mistake. I'll even offer some help:

1. Heterosexuals are the only ones capable of producing families

And we're back on very well-trod ground here. As has been pointed out to you countless times now, this is not even literally true, and even with your more specific claim that only heterosexual couples can reproduce together, you've failed repeatedly to explain the relevance of this fact.

It makes perfect sense in the exact context we were just in. You're smart enough to figure it out.

Now it was meant in the procreative sense. If you want to make an argument against that be my guest. If you honestly don't understand the relevance of procreation with respect to families, then we can drop it :chuckle:

I have been making an argument over the past several pages of this thread. The thing is, the Catholic Church isn't here to plead its case, and I'm not interested in taking it on in abstentia. Dropping the link I take to be your declaration of intent to abdicate the argument without being seen to have done so, in which case I will merely note the abdication on your part and move on.

Rather, there were secular arguments contained in the document. I quoted one of them and was merely citing my source. If you want to jump around with emotional arguments instead of addressing those given a la Rusha, Granite, Uber, then go ahead but know that I don't have a stake in the emotional argument horse. The point I made with that quote was very concrete, intuitive, and statistically strong. Address it if you'd like.

Moreover, this entire bit of reasoning ignores the fact that even if two parents of opposite genders were demonstrated to have some advantage, it would still be true that a homosexual marriage is the most useful union that some people are likely be able to form,

...Which is irrelevant to the topic of civil recognition.

It is, in fact, the only arguable reason I know of that the state takes an interest in couples raising children, which you seem to think is the cause for which the state subsidizes marriages.

Huh? The state is not concerned with "the most useful union that some people are likely to be able to form." If a Buddhist monk who has taken a vow of chastity cannot form any such relationship, the state would be in no way obliged to let him "marry" his good friend... Your response again missing the mark. You are failing to show why the state is interested in marriage at all in such a way that leads to the inclusion of homosexuals into the thing.

and that this probably still provides a better, more stable environment for the children that they do sometimes actually have than if they were raised singly or in less committed, less stable situations.

...situations which also are not recognized as marriage is, for that very reason.

Could you restate that in English please?

The Catholic quote you ignored makes this point. There are different environments for children to be raised in. The best is a (heterosexual) marriage environment. Your argument here is one of degree that tries to use an evil means to attain a good end. For the government to intentionally put children at such a disadvantage and uphold it as the epitome of society (marriage) would be terrible and false.

If we did allow them to contract, it would involve no less than permitting them to marry. So I'd say you've either spent the entirety of this thread arguing against it, or in a deep, deep confusion and misunderstanding.

It isn't. Marriage is a formally recognized societal union which receives positive benefits from the state and is elevated to the level of a societal norm. Compare that to a contract of any kind and you'll find that they aren't the same thing.

Because it is a basic need to the people.

Eh? That is dubiously lacking in any substance or argument.

And yet, it is a reason.

It's a mere assertion, not an argument. It isn't even worth addressing in the assertive form you gave. :idunno:

:e4e:

 

[kmoney]

I agree -- that's the best thing for you.

Don't be a tool.

 

[kmoney]

To create "a legally binding...union" that carries with it "certain privileges and rights, and benefits."

Why do you think the government gives these unions benefits and privileges?

 

[Town Heretic]

Why do you think the government gives these unions benefits and privileges?

For much the same reason it gives incorporated businesses breaks. It's good for the compact. Stable relationships breed happier, productive people. I use the term breed advisedly. lain:

 

[Town Heretic]

And I'd say ..."

I began to answer you point for point, but then you'd already given me the last word...and given nothing in your comments was founded in anything more or less than your willingness to speculate negatively on matters outside your understanding, what would be the point?

But you have this much right, I find myself leading at least one person where I wouldn't have him go and to his injury. So I do the only thing left to me and withdraw.

:e4e:

 

[rexlunae]

why should one guy living with another guy get any more benefits than the mother his two children, who is now living alone?

They shouldn't get "more" or "less" in all cases. The gay couple living together should have available to them the benefits that any other legally recognized married couple do, and whoever is raising the children should get whatever benefits that offers. Once again, the law is sophisticated enough to confer benefits for marriage and benefits for raising children separately, as they are in fact separate activities.

 

[rexlunae]

Why is the state interested in formally recognizing and conferring benefits on certain couples?

There isn't any one reason though. It depends on the specific benefit. In the case of Social Security, the SSA, recognizing that one spouse often supports the career of the other, provides survivor benefits to fill the gap should one partner die. This is good for social stability, because it helps mitigate the disruption of the family due to death. Some benefits are more directly aimed at the union, such as having specific legal prescriptions for the making and breaking of the unions. But I really can't give a comprehensive answer without knowing all the different benefits that the state confers, which I'm not prepared to compile for you. However, I don't know of any for which a fundamental objection could exist to extending them to homosexuals.

Should they give benefits and the like to any grouping of people who "intends to be married"?

Not absolutely any grouping, no, there are some reasonable standards and reasonable objections to allowing just anything to fly. But I would say that there should be a solid reason to deny a marriage.

What does that even mean? You aren't making any argument here, and you're appealing to some kind of odd emotional reason.

No emotional appeal, I assure you. Just pointing out the very obvious reality of the situation.

Another great declaration. :thumb: You're simply smart enough to understand what was said, unlike some of the others around here, so go back and figure it out or feel free to drop it. I was quite clear and made no argumentative mistake. I'll even offer some help:

Now it was meant in the procreative sense. If you want to make an argument against that be my guest. If you honestly don't understand the relevance of procreation with respect to families, then we can drop it :chuckle:

The "argumentative mistake" (read fallacy) that you've made, repeatedly, and upon continual challenge, is that you've failed to connect the observation that homosexuals cannot reproduce together to any relevant aspect of marriage. You've presumed that we will all make some connection based on the traditional conception of marriage, without stopping to consider what marriage is from a legal perspective. There is no procreative requirement for marriage, nor is the institution irrelevant without procreation, and therefore denying it to homosexuals on grounds of procreation is blatantly unjustified discrimination.

Rather, there were secular arguments contained in the document. I quoted one of them and was merely citing my source. If you want to jump around with emotional arguments instead of addressing those given a la Rusha, Granite, Uber, then go ahead but know that I don't have a stake in the emotional argument horse. The point I made with that quote was very concrete, intuitive, and statistically strong. Address it if you'd like.

I'd call them faux secular arguments at best. Because all the Church cites as a source here is "experience", which is no the same thing as research, and goes on to describe homosexual marriage as "violence", which is an absurd leap. Frankly, there's nothing there to argue with. All I could do is challenge them to show their sources, which of course they aren't going to do because they aren't actually here to argue, and didn't ever intend to found their argument on actual research in the first place. In fact, whereas the "notes" section includes a fair amount of self-reference, it doesn't contain even an attempt to link the claims here to any sort of research. So the best and easiest and most honest approach I have is to dismiss the whole thing, and to inform you that you were doing better, albeit only slightly, when you weren't relying on this document.

Huh? The state is not concerned with "the most useful union that some people are likely to be able to form."

I disagree. It is, to the extent that the state takes an interest in facilitating people's pursuit of happiness rather than frustrating it. I'm afraid there is no neutral path available with marriage.

If a Buddhist monk who has taken a vow of chastity cannot form any such relationship, the state would be in no way obliged to let him "marry" his good friend...

Is there any good reason for the state to stop him?

The Catholic quote you ignored makes this point. There are different environments for children to be raised in. The best is a (heterosexual) marriage environment.

Even if you accept that ideal, we don't get to live in a world of ideals, and homosexual often end up raising children. The stability of marriage to their partner would very likely be better than single parenthood, which is likely the only alternative. But rather than generalize about these, and try to encode our sociological assumptions into the law, I think it makes far more sense to let families decide for themselves on issues of family composition. All else is fascism.

Your argument here is one of degree that tries to use an evil means to attain a good end.

As long as you assume that homosexual marriage is evil. Which I don't. You're just begging the question.

For the government to intentionally put children at such a disadvantage and uphold it as the epitome of society (marriage) would be terrible and false.

Presumptive nonsense. You assume that in all cases the child has an avenue available that would be preferable. This simply isn't the case.

It isn't. Marriage is a formally recognized societal union which receives positive benefits from the state and is elevated to the level of a societal norm. Compare that to a contract of any kind and you'll find that they aren't the same thing.

I'm going to quote from the North Dakota Century Code by way of example in the hopes that we can clear up your confusion regarding what marriage legally is. The law of North Dakota is just one standard among many, but the others that I have looked at are substantially similar, and North Dakota's law is fairly clear for the casual read. It's also my home state, so I use it as a common reference point.

NDCC Title 14, Chapter 03, entitled "Marriage Contract"

14-03-01. What constitutes marriage - Spouse defined. Marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between one man and one woman to which the consent of the parties is essential. The marriage relation may be entered into, maintained, annulled, or dissolved only as provided by law. A spouse refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

http://www.legis.nd.gov/cencode/t14c03.pdf

So, right up front, we see that the law explicitly describes marriage as a contract between the parties. The fact that the law imposes a specific set of legal structures does not change the fact that it is a contract. It also limits the participants to be of opposite gender, which I would say is unfairly discriminatory.

 

[chrysostom]

They shouldn't get "more" or "less" in all cases. The gay couple living together should have available to them the benefits that any other legally recognized married couple do, and whoever is raising the children should get whatever benefits that offers. Once again, the law is sophisticated enough to confer benefits for marriage and benefits for raising children separately, as they are in fact separate activities.

why should two people living together get any benefits?

 

[zippy2006]

I began to answer you point for point, but then you'd already given me the last word...and given nothing in your comments was founded in anything more or less than your willingness to speculate negatively on matters outside your understanding, what would be the point?

But you have this much right, I find myself leading at least one person where I wouldn't have him go and to his injury. So I do the only thing left to me and withdraw.

:e4e:

I asked you to pray over it, noting your deviation from God's word and where it could be problematic, and this is how you responded. Do what you will, as if it needs saying :sigh:

:e4e:

 

[rexlunae]

why should two people living together get any benefits?

I suggest you take that up with Congress as a more general question. But given that it is offered to heterosexual couples, it must also be offered to homosexual ones.

 

[zippy2006]

But given that it is offered to heterosexual couples, it must also be offered to homosexual ones.

This is patently false, and you know it. Why do you have to keep saying things like this? Chrys' question stands. Why should the government be required to support an ambiguous collection of persons? The argument that we are making is that they shouldn't (common sense) and that marriage is no such thing, and that the government has a specific reason to support marriage and that that reason inherently has nothing to do with homosexual couples.

I will answer your longer post soon which is an extension of this fact, but this blatantly false assertion to Chrys is annoying to say the least. If you honestly think that our side is just a bunch of religious hooey without any argument and you are the only one with the objective reasons, then you simply must stop these kinds of statements.

:e4e:

 

[some other dude]

toldailytopic: Same-sex marriage: for it?

Of course.

But only for homos.