Gay marriage

[inviere1644]

Ok, as a moderate gay man I'm always interested to see what people on the liberal and conservative spectrums have to say about this issue. So, is it right or wrong? why or why not?

[otseng]

For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature-if this Holy Bible verse does not look that it is prohibiting lesbians the I believe you need wisdom from God to distinguish good and evil.

Moderator Comment

In the context of debating here, it is not prudent to say others need God's wisdom to accept your position. Simply present your position and your argument and leave it at that.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster.

[bluethread]

It appears that marrage, as used in this thread, refers to a relationship formally recognized by a governing authority. In order to determine whether such a formal recognition is necessary, one must determine what purpose it serves that is of value to the governing authority. Therefore, what purpose does recognizing marage between persons of the same sex serve for the governing authority?

[Autodidact]

It appears that marrage, as used in this thread, refers to a relationship formally recognized by a governing authority. In order to determine whether such a formal recognition is necessary, one must determine what purpose it serves that is of value to the governing authority. Therefore, what purpose does recognizing marage between persons of the same sex serve for the governing authority?

The same as opposite sex: promotes social stability, provides a secure framework for raising any children they choose to have, encourages stable partnerships, regulates governmental benefits depending on relationship, and facilitates substitute decision-making.

What purpose does denying equality to this group serve?

[bluethread]

It appears that marrage, as used in this thread, refers to a relationship formally recognized by a governing authority. In order to determine whether such a formal recognition is necessary, one must determine what purpose it serves that is of value to the governing authority. Therefore, what purpose does recognizing marage between persons of the same sex serve for the governing authority?

The same as opposite sex: promotes social stability, provides a secure framework for raising any children they choose to have, encourages stable partnerships, regulates governmental benefits depending on relationship, and facilitates substitute decision-making.

What purpose does denying equality to this group serve?

First, I think the proper word is parity not equality, since it has not been proven that male/female relationships are equal to same sex relationships. Second, there is no need for the state to have a purpose in not acting, unless the state has been given a mandate to act. Therefore, if one wishes to expand the authority of the government, one must show a purpose in doing so. Even in cases where government authority has already been expanded, the purpose of a smaller more efficient government and greater personal freedom serve as sufficient purposes to remove that authority barring any more pressing purpose.

Let's look at the purposes that have been provided and see if they indeed require the expansion of governmental authority and reduction of civil liberties.

First, social stability. This is a rather ill defined purpose because it by definition limits civil liberties. One must therefore ask, what danger is it to the state that individuals have same sex relationships without formal acknowledgement of those relationships by the state? I would go as far as to say this purpose does not even substantiate the need for the state to formally acknowledge mael/female relationships. It may serve as a secondary argument with regard to another purpose, but in and of itself, it is not substantial enough to override civil liberties.

Second, it provides a secure framework for raising any children they choose to have. This, I believe is the strongest of all the purposes you have proposed. It is the one that I believe is the fundimental purpose of marrage with regard to the state. First, let's look at the purpose in general, then we can see how it applies to the sexual orientation of the individuals involved. Who in our society is entrusted with the raising of children? Well, there is the biological parents, but there are various other institutions that have been mandated with this responsibility. If we are to give blanket recognition of a marrage relationship in all such cases, we would not just be supporting polygomy, but multiple interdependant marrage contracts between various individuals. (I'll be back to inishthis thought.)

[Autodidact]

What purpose does denying equality to this group serve?

First, I think the proper word is parity not equality, since it has not been proven that male/female relationships are equal to same sex relationships.

Well, you're probably right. male/female relationships are probably inferior to same-sex relationships in many ways, but we'll probably continue to grant them marriage rights anyway.

Second, there is no need for the state to have a purpose in not acting, unless the state has been given a mandate to act. Therefore, if one wishes to expand the authority of the government, one must show a purpose in doing so.

I beg to differ. When teh government discriminates against one group, it must have a justifiable purpose or reason for doing so.

Even in cases where government authority has already been expanded, the purpose of a smaller more efficient government and greater personal freedom serve as sufficient purposes to remove that authority barring any more pressing purpose.

Wait, you're advocating for personal freedom, or against it. I'm confused.

Let's look at the purposes that have been provided and see if they indeed require the expansion of governmental authority and reduction of civil liberties.

What are you talking about? Who's advocating either of these things? Are you trying to make an argument that allowing people to marry expands governmental authority and reduces civil liberties? That's a bizarre position. Please share your logic, if any.

First, social stability. This is a rather ill defined purpose because it by definition limits civil liberties.

No, it doesn't.

One must therefore ask, what danger is it to the state that individuals have same sex relationships without formal acknowledgement of those relationships by the state?

No, one needn't ask this, but I think it's kind of cool how you just go along making stuff up.

I would go as far as to say this purpose does not even substantiate the need for the state to formally acknowledge mael/female relationships.

Good job. You have succeeded in destroying the entire institution of marriage.

It may serve as a secondary argument with regard to another purpose, but in and of itself, it is not substantial enough to override civil liberties.

Please show how allowing two people to marry each other overrides anyone's civil liberties.

Second, it provides a secure framework for raising any children they choose to have. This, I believe is the strongest of all the purposes you have proposed. It is the one that I believe is the fundimental purpose of marrage with regard to the state. First, let's look at the purpose in general, then we can see how it applies to the sexual orientation of the individuals involved. Who in our society is entrusted with the raising of children? Well, there is the biological parents, but there are various other institutions that have been mandated with this responsibility. If we are to give blanket recognition of a marrage relationship in all such cases, we would not just be supporting polygomy, but multiple interdependant marrage contracts between various individuals. (I'll be back to inishthis thought.)

There you go again, just making stuff up as though it made a lick of sense. No, actually it doesn't.

So, can you show how allowing lesbian parents to marry each other is detrimental to their children?

[bluethread]

What purpose does denying equality to this group serve?

First, I think the proper word is parity not equality, since it has not been proven that male/female relationships are equal to same sex relationships.

Well, you're probably right. male/female relationships are probably inferior to same-sex relationships in many ways, but we'll probably continue to grant them marriage rights anyway.

Yes, your snarkiness. I was not speaking of qualitatively, but actual differences that I hope to examine to see if they effect the topic at hand.

Second, there is no need for the state to have a purpose in not acting, unless the state has been given a mandate to act. Therefore, if one wishes to expand the authority of the government, one must show a purpose in doing so.

I beg to differ. When teh government discriminates against one group, it must have a justifiable purpose or reason for doing so.

If the government is acting without a mandate, it is not discrimination but overreach. If the government does have a mandate, which we have yet to establish in our converstion, then yes the scope of that mandate must be defined and justified.

Even in cases where government authority has already been expanded, the purpose of a smaller more efficient government and greater personal freedom serve as sufficient purposes to remove that authority barring any more pressing purpose.

Wait, you're advocating for personal freedom, or against it. I'm confused.

Let's look at the purposes that have been provided and see if they indeed require the expansion of governmental authority and reduction of civil liberties.

What are you talking about? Who's advocating either of these things? Are you trying to make an argument that allowing people to marry expands governmental authority and reduces civil liberties? That's a bizarre position. Please share your logic, if any.

Whenever something is regulated by the government, it's authority is expanded and civil liberties are necessarily reduced. Governmental recognition of marrage is not a right, but the establishment of the government as the regulator of that relationship. If two persons have a commitment with each other without governmental regulation, they are free to exercise that relationship with much more freedom and since you brought it up above, without the government discriminating against them visavis this single person.

First, social stability. This is a rather ill defined purpose because it by definition limits civil liberties.

No, it doesn't.

If not does not, then why are not free to do as we please? It is all a matter of degree. Fascism provides for a very stable society. It is always a tradeoff of liberty against stability.

One must therefore ask, what danger is it to the state that individuals have same sex relationships without formal acknowledgement of those relationships by the state?

No, one needn't ask this, but I think it's kind of cool how you just go along making stuff up.

I would go as far as to say this purpose does not even substantiate the need for the state to formally acknowledge mael/female relationships.

Good job. You have succeeded in destroying the entire institution of marriage.

It may serve as a secondary argument with regard to another purpose, but in and of itself, it is not substantial enough to override civil liberties.

Please show how allowing two people to marry each other overrides anyone's civil liberties.

I have not destroyed the entire institution of marriage. I have merely stated that the lack government recognition of that institution does not in and of itself threaten the stability of society. We are not talking about restraining people from making private contracts, but about a governmental institution recognizing those relationships apart from or in additon to civil contract law.

Second, it provides a secure framework for raising any children they choose to have. This, I believe is the strongest of all the purposes you have proposed. It is the one that I believe is the fundimental purpose of marrage with regard to the state. First, let's look at the purpose in general, then we can see how it applies to the sexual orientation of the individuals involved. Who in our society is entrusted with the raising of children? Well, there is the biological parents, but there are various other institutions that have been mandated with this responsibility. If we are to give blanket recognition of a marrage relationship in all such cases, we would not just be supporting polygomy, but multiple interdependant marrage contracts between various individuals. (I'll be back to inishthis thought.)

There you go again, just making stuff up as though it made a lick of sense. No, actually it doesn't.

As I said, I am back to finish that thought. That is why we need to narrow that purpose somewhat. I guess I had better design my statements as responses to your objections, if we are to make any progress in examining th institution of marrage and to what extent it is necessary for the government to be involved. Are you saying that to grant a marrage relationship between teachers and parents, or daycare worker and parents would not cause the situation I mentioned?

So, can you show how allowing lesbian parents to marry each other is detrimental to their children?

No one is stopping that from taking place. There are many organizations that will perform such a service and many lawyers in every state that can draw up a civil contract to that effect. The issue is not keeping such things from happening, it is whether the government should be required to force third parties to recognize such contracts.

At this point, I will stop so we can discuss these thing out before we move on to purpose 3.

[Autodidact]

What purpose does denying equality to this group serve?

First, I think the proper word is parity not equality, since it has not been proven that male/female relationships are equal to same sex relationships.

Well, you're probably right. male/female relationships are probably inferior to same-sex relationships in many ways, but we'll probably continue to grant them marriage rights anyway. [/quote]

Yes, your snarkiness. I was not speaking of qualitatively, but actual differences that I hope to examine to see if they effect the topic at hand.

Try to address the argument, not the participant; forum rules require it. If they are not "actually" (as opposed to qualitatively?) equal, it does not follow that same-sex marriages are the ones that should be disparaged. And if you want to examine something, examine it, don't just announce it.

Second, there is no need for the state to have a purpose in not acting, unless the state has been given a mandate to act. Therefore, if one wishes to expand the authority of the government, one must show a purpose in doing so.

I beg to differ. When teh government discriminates against one group, it must have a justifiable purpose or reason for doing so.

If the government is acting without a mandate, it is not discrimination but overreach.

The government clearly has a mandate to regulate marriage; it's really not at issue.

If the government does have a mandate, which we have yet to establish in our converstion, then yes the scope of that mandate must be defined and justified.

Are you trying to assert that our government does not have a mandate to regulate marriage?

Even in cases where government authority has already been expanded, the purpose of a smaller more efficient government and greater personal freedom serve as sufficient purposes to remove that authority barring any more pressing purpose.

Wait, you're advocating for personal freedom, or against it. I'm confused.

Let's look at the purposes that have been provided and see if they indeed require the expansion of governmental authority and reduction of civil liberties.

What are you talking about? Who's advocating either of these things? Are you trying to make an argument that allowing people to marry expands governmental authority and reduces civil liberties? That's a bizarre position. Please share your logic, if any.

Whenever something is regulated by the government, it's authority is expanded and civil liberties are necessarily reduced.

Well, since this would reduce that regulation, rather than expand it, it would therefore reduce that authority and therefore expand civil liberties.

Governmental recognition of marrage is not a right, but the establishment of the government as the regulator of that relationship.

The SCOTUS begs to differ from you, in every case in which the question has arisen.

If two persons have a commitment with each other without governmental regulation, they are free to exercise that relationship with much more freedom and since you brought it up above, without the government discriminating against them visavis this single person.

Yes, but that is not what's under discussion.

First, social stability. This is a rather ill defined purpose because it by definition limits civil liberties.

No, it doesn't.

If not does not, then why are not free to do as we please? It is all a matter of degree. Fascism provides for a very stable society. It is always a tradeoff of liberty against stability.

This is incoherent. There is no way that providing the option of marriage can reduce liberty.

One must therefore ask, what danger is it to the state that individuals have same sex relationships without formal acknowledgement of those relationships by the state?

No, one needn't ask this, but I think it's kind of cool how you just go along making stuff up.

I would go as far as to say this purpose does not even substantiate the need for the state to formally acknowledge mael/female relationships.

Good job. You have succeeded in destroying the entire institution of marriage.

It may serve as a secondary argument with regard to another purpose, but in and of itself, it is not substantial enough to override civil liberties.

Please show how allowing two people to marry each other overrides anyone's civil liberties.

I have not destroyed the entire institution of marriage. I have merely stated that the lack government recognition of that institution does not in and of itself threaten the stability of society. We are not talking about restraining people from making private contracts, but about a governmental institution recognizing those relationships apart from or in additon to civil contract law.

Yes, we are. That's marriage. You seem to be against it.

Second, it provides a secure framework for raising any children they choose to have. This, I believe is the strongest of all the purposes you have proposed. It is the one that I believe is the fundimental purpose of marrage with regard to the state. First, let's look at the purpose in general, then we can see how it applies to the sexual orientation of the individuals involved. Who in our society is entrusted with the raising of children? Well, there is the biological parents, but there are various other institutions that have been mandated with this responsibility. If we are to give blanket recognition of a marrage relationship in all such cases, we would not just be supporting polygomy, but multiple interdependant marrage contracts between various individuals. (I'll be back to inishthis thought.)

There you go again, just making stuff up as though it made a lick of sense. No, actually it doesn't.

As I said, I am back to finish that thought. That is why we need to narrow that purpose somewhat. I guess I had better design my statements as responses to your objections, if we are to make any progress in examining th institution of marrage and to what extent it is necessary for the government to be involved. Are you saying that to grant a marrage relationship between teachers and parents, or daycare worker and parents would not cause the situation I mentioned?

I'm saying I have no idea what you're talking about or what your point is.

So, can you show how allowing lesbian parents to marry each other is detrimental to their children?

No one is stopping that from taking place.

Yes, you are.

There are many organizations that will perform such a service and many lawyers in every state that can draw up a civil contract to that effect. The issue is not keeping such things from happening, it is whether the government should be required to force third parties to recognize such contracts.

No, marriage is not available to these parents*. If it were, we wouldn't be having this conversation. *Unless they live in a state or country where it is, such as Vermont, Iowa or Canada.
You seem to be arguing that not being married is the same as being married. It isn't.

At this point, I will stop so we can discuss these thing out before we move on to purpose 3.

What things?

[bluethread]

If the government is acting without a mandate, it is not discrimination but overreach.

The government clearly has a mandate to regulate marriage; it's really not at issue.

If the government does have a mandate, which we have yet to establish in our converstion, then yes the scope of that mandate must be defined and justified.

Are you trying to assert that our government does not have a mandate to regulate marriage?

No, I am trying to avoid being presumptious. So much is being presumed here, it is difficult to get to the core principles. Even though there is a political mandate with regard to marrage being regulated by the various states, it is important to deternine if and to what extent that mandate is morally justified.

Whenever something is regulated by the government, it's authority is expanded and civil liberties are necessarily reduced.

Well, since this would reduce that regulation, rather than expand it, it would therefore reduce that authority and therefore expand civil liberties.

No, it would expand the authority of government to regulate relationships between same sex couples. Now, one is not required to register with the government to be a "domestic partner" and can arrange their affairs, pardon the pun, as they please. however, once the government recognizes the relationship as a "marrage". that relationship mudt comply with certain regulations. Therefore, the government has more control and the individuals less freedom.

Governmental recognition of marrage is not a right, but the establishment of the government as the regulator of that relationship.

The SCOTUS begs to differ from you, in every case in which the question has arisen.

No. the SCOTUS has determined that the regulations of the various states do not violate the Constitution of the United States and the federal law pursuant thereto. The primary clause is the ICC clause with regard to contracts established in one state applying to another. So, far the SCOTUS has decided that a marrage contract that is valid in one state is valid in all states, subject to litigation occuring in the proper venue. Whether this applies to same sex marrages or not had not yet reached the SCOTUS as far as I can tell.

If two persons have a commitment with each other without governmental regulation, they are free to exercise that relationship with much more freedom and since you brought it up above, without the government discriminating against them visavis this single person.

Yes, but that is not what's under discussion.

That is why I took it for granted that you would understand that once one recieves government recognition, and thus regulation, of the relationship, government authority increases and personal liberty decreases.

It is all a matter of degree. Fascism provides for a very stable society. It is always a tradeoff of liberty against stability.

This is incoherent. There is no way that providing the option of marriage can reduce liberty.

The option of marrage is available. There are just some states that do not formally recognize it as such.

I have not destroyed the entire institution of marriage. I have merely stated that the lack government recognition of that institution does not in and of itself threaten the stability of society. We are not talking about restraining people from making private contracts, but about a governmental institution recognizing those relationships apart from or in additon to civil contract law.

Yes, we are. That's marriage. You seem to be against it.

We appear to have a disagreement regarding what constitutes marrage. Is it an agreement between individuals which may or may not be recognized by a governing authority, or is it only a status recognized by a governing authority subject to the dictates of said authority? I'll respond to the rest later.

[bluethread]

That is why we need to narrow that purpose somewhat. I guess I had better design my statements as responses to your objections, if we are to make any progress in examining th institution of marrage and to what extent it is necessary for the government to be involved. Are you saying that to grant a marrage relationship between teachers and parents, or daycare worker and parents would not cause the situation I mentioned?

I'm saying I have no idea what you're talking about or what your point is.

I am saying that we can not say that it is in the best interest of the state to recognize marrage in any and all relationships that care for children. The scope has to be narrower than that. What is it about the care of children that makes marrage preferable in the eyes of the state?

So, can you show how allowing lesbian parents to marry each other is detrimental to their children?

No one is stopping that from taking place.

Yes, you are.

There are many organizations that will perform such a service and many lawyers in every state that can draw up a civil contract to that effect. The issue is not keeping such things from happening, it is whether the government should be required to force third parties to recognize such contracts.

No, marriage is not available to these parents*. If it were, we wouldn't be having this conversation. *Unless they live in a state or country where it is, such as Vermont, Iowa or Canada.
You seem to be arguing that not being married is the same as being married. It isn't.

How am I personnally stopping these relationships from taking place? Marrage may not be available, if marrage is defined as an institution established at the whim of the governing authority and granted by it as largese. However, I prefer the other definition, ie. an agreement that may or may not be recognized by a governing authority. However, take your pick. It will just be good to get something clearly defined.

At this point, I will stop so we can discuss these thing out before we move on to purpose 3.

What things?

The first two purposes you proposed and the related issues that have arrisen around them.

[Autodidact]

No, I am trying to avoid being presumptious. So much is being presumed here, it is difficult to get to the core principles. Even though there is a political mandate with regard to marrage being regulated by the various states, it is important to deternine if and to what extent that mandate is morally justified.

Uh, o.k., you do that. Of course, we've been doing it since we had a government, but please suit yourself.

Whenever something is regulated by the government, it's authority is expanded and civil liberties are necessarily reduced.

Well, since this would reduce that regulation, rather than expand it, it would therefore reduce that authority and therefore expand civil liberties.

No, it would expand the authority of government to regulate relationships between same sex couples.

Nope. Same-sex couples could continue to have the same relationships they have right now, or they could choose to avail themselves of the status of being married.

Now, one is not required to register with the government to be a "domestic partner" and can arrange their affairs, pardon the pun, as they please.

No one is required to register any such thing.

however, once the government recognizes the relationship as a "marrage". that relationship mudt comply with certain regulations. Therefore, the government has more control and the individuals less freedom.

So in your logic, offering equal rights to another option reduces freedom? Really?

Governmental recognition of marrage is not a right, but the establishment of the government as the regulator of that relationship.

The SCOTUS begs to differ from you, in every case in which the question has arisen.

No. the SCOTUS has determined that the regulations of the various states do not violate the Constitution of the United States and the federal law pursuant thereto

. Marriage is a basic human right. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (196), Zablocki v Redhail (1978) Furthermore, the court has repeatedly held that restrictions on who can marry impinge on that right, not the other way around.

The primary clause is the ICC clause with regard to contracts established in one state applying to another. So, far the SCOTUS has decided that a marrage contract that is valid in one state is valid in all states, subject to litigation occuring in the proper venue. Whether this applies to same sex marrages or not had not yet reached the SCOTUS as far as I can tell.

I can't imagine why on earth you're bringing the commerce clause into it.

If two persons have a commitment with each other without governmental regulation, they are free to exercise that relationship with much more freedom and since you brought it up above, without the government discriminating against them visavis this single person.

Yes, but that is not what's under discussion.

That is why I took it for granted that you would understand that once one recieves government recognition, and thus regulation, of the relationship, government authority increases and personal liberty decreases.

I understand it perfectly well. It just happens to be wrong. Recognizing the right to enter into that status obviously does not reduce the freedom of that group of people, it increases it.

It is all a matter of degree. Fascism provides for a very stable society. It is always a tradeoff of liberty against stability.

This is incoherent. There is no way that providing the option of marriage can reduce liberty.

The option of marrage is available. There are just some states that do not formally recognize it as such.

It is not available in most states. If it were, we wouldn't be arguing about it, would we?

I have not destroyed the entire institution of marriage. I have merely stated that the lack government recognition of that institution does not in and of itself threaten the stability of society. We are not talking about restraining people from making private contracts, but about a governmental institution recognizing those relationships apart from or in additon to civil contract law.

Yes, we are. That's marriage. You seem to be against it.

We appear to have a disagreement regarding what constitutes marrage. Is it an agreement between individuals which may or may not be recognized by a governing authority, or is it only a status recognized by a governing authority subject to the dictates of said authority? I'll repsond to the rest later.

It's both an agreement and a status. That is what marriage has always been, historically. One easy way to conceptualize it is an agreement to enter into a recognized status.