If Marriage Is a Fundamental Right, Then?

[crispybits]

I told you already the answer. You can plug in the information from the top of this page to your equation. Sorry the quotes were getting out of hand

No worries, that's why I kept reminding you.

OK, I've asked person X and person Y everything I'm legally allowed to ask them from your description. Unfortunately one of them was born infertile (I can't tell you which for legal reasons), so they will never be able to have kids together, but apart from that they do share a special, loving committed emotional bond, they are financially stable, etc. Everything I am legally allowed to ask them which could be used as a legally valid reason to prevent them entering a legal contract has provided no red flags at all. So I can now assume that there should be no legal reason they should not be allowed to marry each other right?

Okay well like I already said, having children is not the only reason to get married, especially over the last couple generations.

All I am saying is that there is a name for the bond that a male and a female makes to become parents and create a child and to put something above themselves that can help survive the struggle through the hard times when people want to give up. That term is marriage, and I truly believe that the weaker marriage becomes, the more society will suffer as more and more children are raised without a father and born out of wedlock etc; raised in less than ideal situations. That isn't to say there aren't problems and circumstances beyond people's control, but it is to say we should hold up the ideal family structure as something to strive towards, but not imposed, and certainly not abandoned.

I think as long as person X is a male, and person Y is a female, and they are not related beyond a certain extent, and they are of legal consenting age, of course they should be able to marry. Why wouldn't they?

as an aside, do you believe that it is good advice for a couple to get married before they have children? why or why not?

And I am saying that bond is love, trust and commitment. Marriage is the name of the contract the two enter into in order to legally or socially or culturally or in some cases religiously affirm that bond to wider society, it's nothing to do with the bond itself. Or do you believe that when two people get married it somehow magically ties them together emotionally in a way that isn't possible without it? Emotionally, what is the difference in the actual relationship between a marriage and two people simply privately or publicly promising each other, with all their hearts, that they are there for life?

I can't ask person X or person Y their gender or I would be committing an act of illegal sexual discrimination. By law gender is irrelevant when entering a legal contract. I can check they are over the legal age of consent no problem, and they are. I can check that they aren't blood relatives, and they are not.

You say the ideal family unit (ideal by whose standards by the way) is something to strive towards, but not to impose, and yet you are imposing your own definition of both family and marriage in this debate. And we call that intolerant because you are discriminating based on legally protected charcteristics, on things that a person is born with and has no control over and which it is well established that it would not be fair in any way to deny them legal rights based on those characteristics. Not because you don't agree with us, but because you are acting illegally (or would be if you were in a positon of power and enforced that opinion on someone else.)

Take the legally protected characteristic out of your assertion "marriage is between a man and a woman" and it becomes "marriage is between a person and a person". The slippery slope you seem so fond of isn't particularly slippery. Multiple marriage is still banned. Incest is still banned. Bestiality is still banned. Paedophilia (through law about age of consent to form a contract) is still banned. You haven't redefined anything, except to remove the inherent gender discrimination that society has established is a bad thing and should be prevented. It's not even about sexuality, it's about gender.

I believe it is good advice for a couple to get married before having kids for legal reasons sure, as the legal benefits alone (ignoring the financial ones) are many and varied and I can foresee things like a pregnancy going wrong and the husband needing legal next of kin status over the wife to be able to make emergency medical decisions, rather than waiting for blood relatives to show up. I don't believe it's essential. I could walk about a mile from my house and show you the most in love couple you're ever likely to meet and their daughter, and they would be able to explain very eloquently why they have chosen never to get married, but also that they are with each other for life and that they love each other as deeply as any married couple. But I don't know where you're going with this as you've already said child production isn't essential to your definition (even though every time you give your definition it seems to include some reference to it).

[Phatscotty]

So, since incest and beastiality and multiple marriage and pedophilia were not instantly made legal....the slippery slope doesn't exist? I think that's just a knee-jerk response, and you might want to dwell on that a bit.

I already showed how and where in earlier posts and I'm not gonna sit and repeat myself so if you want to talk about the slippery slope that you deny and I can easily show you is already here. If you are just gonna deny the consequences of what has happened where gay marriage has been legalized, then we won't be able to have a constructive discussion.

[crispybits]

Pretty much yeah - because you're not redefining marriage, just removing the illegal gender discrimination from it. It still has to be between two people of consenting legal age. So no animals, no multiples, etc. And outlawing incest isn't about gender either - you could have any gender combination in an incestual relationship so banning that isn't discrimination based on a protected characteristic.

[Phatscotty]

Pretty much yeah - because you're not redefining marriage, just removing the illegal gender discrimination from it. It still has to be between two people of consenting legal age. So no animals, no multiples, etc. And outlawing incest isn't about gender either - you could have any gender combination in an incestual relationship so banning that isn't discrimination based on a protected characteristic.

I like how you put that. I vote that changing a term that has always been opposite sex, to also be same sex, qualifies as redefining the term.

There is what marriage means, and then there is what you want it to mean. Your personal opinion on something does not have power over the definition of a word.

[crispybits]

I'm not changing a term to include any sex at all - I'm following the principles of many equality laws by removing the gender requirement entirely, as people cannot choose which gender they are born into, so to tell someone that they can't form legal contracts based solely on their gender would be immoral (always) and illegal in many cases depending what country you're in.

You do realise that an appeal to tradition is a well established logical fallacy right?

[Woodruff]

I can see from the point of view in the picture. But I dont call people bigots or anything if they dont believe in gay rights, I just try to convince them that it really is okay if someone is like that.

I commend you for this. They are way out of line calling people that just for disagreeing. I mean, it's not like history is on their side, it's on ours.

No it isn't. Just because you want to ignore the majority of human history doesn't mean that human history no longer actually exists.

I think abusing the word bigot and using it so often without reason is a form of hatred and certainly intolerance and bullying.

What about when it's not being abused and is being rather accurately used?

I only wish to have an actual discussion, to introduce the points clearly, outside of the closet, to look at the intended consequences, explore some of the unintended consequences etc. It's a lot harder than it sounds.

I would suggest that, for you, it's actually impossible. But it would be nice to see you do it.

In France, they are trying to ban the words "mother" and "father".

You keep coming back to this. First of all, so what? They're words. Secondly, are you sure that they're actually trying to ban the use of those words entirely? Because I don't think that's what is actually happening.

In Massachussets, Catholic Orphanages were forced to close their doors for refusing to give orphans to same sex couples.

Good. Bigots should be taken out of the picture.

In Denmark, the Church is forced to marry gay people in church.

So that means the U.S. is headed there? Is that actually the implication you're trying to hamhandedly make? And if that's not the implication you're trying to make, then why bring it up?

In California, girls can wear tuxedos and boys can wear dresses to formal dances.

So what? How does this harm ANYTHING AT ALL?

It might turn out incest is okay in Massachussets.

Typical throw-the-bullshit-at-the-wall-to-see-what-sticks.

I could go on.

There's no doubt you will, while simultaneously ignoring all rational opposing arguments.

Of course this isn't what most people who just want it to be about love have intended, but it is they who refused to use their minds, and only use their hearts. The formula of feeling your way through an issue, without any thought, is a recipe for disaster

"feeling your way through an issue, without any thought"...it's funny you would use that particular set of words, given your positions on the subject.

Personally, I think there is a national brainwash on the issue underway, and it start in kindergartens of public schools all across the USA.

Of COURSE! Those damn teachers and their teachers unions are absolutely to blame for the nationwide recognition of RIGHTS FOR A GROUP WHICH DID NOT PREVIOUSLY EXIST. Well if that's the case, and I think this is an idiotic statement on your part, good for the teachers. Well done!

That's why the kids keep saying "just wait until we are older and in control. gay marriage is just a matter of time" because, of course, children know everything about marriage.....it's a textbook indoctrination

Speaking of indoctrination, how is your anti-homosexual-marriage campaign going?

[Woodruff]

So, since incest and beastiality and multiple marriage and pedophilia were not instantly made legal....the slippery slope doesn't exist?

The slippery slope does not exist.

I think that's just a knee-jerk response, and you might want to dwell on that a bit.

Your bringing up incest, beastiality, multiple marriages and paedophilia into the discussion is more of a knee-jerk response, but I wouldn't expect you to dwell on it given your past schedule of self-reflection.

I already showed how and where in earlier posts and I'm not gonna sit and repeat myself so if you want to talk about the slippery slope that you deny and I can easily show you is already here. If you are just gonna deny the consequences of what has happened where gay marriage has been legalized, then we won't be able to have a constructive discussion.

Yes, that's certainly what stops you from having constructive discussions. Definitely.

[Woodruff]

Pretty much yeah - because you're not redefining marriage, just removing the illegal gender discrimination from it. It still has to be between two people of consenting legal age. So no animals, no multiples, etc. And outlawing incest isn't about gender either - you could have any gender combination in an incestual relationship so banning that isn't discrimination based on a protected characteristic.

I like how you put that. I vote that changing a term that has always been opposite sex, to also be same sex, qualifies as redefining the term.

Except it HASN'T "always been opposite sex". That's the reality.

There is what marriage means, and then there is what you want it to mean. Your personal opinion on something does not have power over the definition of a word.

YOUR personal opinion on something does not have the power over the definition of the word. YOUR willingness to ignore history does not create what a thing is.

[Symmetry]

You do realise that an appeal to tradition is a well established logical fallacy right?

If Scotty understands more than 50% of that sentence, it will be a miracle.

[BigBallinStalin]

You do realise that an appeal to tradition is a well established logical fallacy right?

It depends on how the appeal is worded.

(A) If it's something simple like "gay marriage? NO because it's not how we've been doing it (appeal to tradition).

There's a logical fallacy.

But say we're discussing the good times right before the French Revolution.

(B) "Hey guise, maybe we shouldn't be ripping apart the social order to such a degree. Such drastic steps from tradition (custom, convention, etc.) is a heavy lifter in maintaining social order (appeal to tradition?). By tearing it asunder, things would get worse (slippery slope?)."

If I added several more sentences for a proper defense of (B), I wouldn't conclude that I committed two logical fallacies.

If we admit that (B) contains two logical fallacies, and since the French Revolution and its consequences were freakin' terrible, then what exactly was the benefit of accepting the two logical fallacies? We would have discarded a reasonable argument and seemingly allowed for a devastating event....
(perhaps it's a limit of logic/reason).

[crispybits]

Except that for it not to be an appeal to tradition, there has to be evidence showed that the tradition has stood up to mulitple challenges similar to this and not changed at all. The modern nuclear family concept that he is hanging the argument around is a relatively recent invention (culturally speaking) - even as little as a couple of hundred years ago families were generally extended way beyond the bounds of just "mother, father and children" and would have included other relatives and non-related stakeholders all living in the same place and all being responsible for raising the children, working, etc. And in modern times there have been other major shifts in how family units operate, with a rise of single parent families for just one example. This 1950s dream of mum, dad, 2 kids and the white picket fence isn't the only working model (and it wasn't even then) and to try and shoehorn definitions into fitting it at the expense of the people in society who through accident of birth could never fit it, that's naive at best and bigoted at worst.

The slippery slope argument remains a fallacy unless it can be shown, through a causal/probabilistic chain of events, that the end of the slope is likely. Now all PS has done is point to a court case currently ongoing about incest, and made vague references to cases involving polygamy. Firstly, these cases are happening without gay marriage being recognised, they don't need the slippery slope to happen to get these other things happening. There is no causal link between gay marriage being recognised and polygamy or incest or whatever being recognised, especially with the argument the way I put it, which keeps marriage between two people with all the other rules in place but just stops illegal gender discrimination.

Secondly, it wrongly states that gay marriage would be at the top of this slippery slope. MARRIAGE is at the top of this slippery slope. Once you allow people to start marrying people, then what's to stop people marrying animals, or toasters, or the moon? If PS is really serious about ridding the world of this horrible slippery slope, he should be arguing that we get rid of all forms of marriage entirely (not just the government recognition of them, but the concept itself), because that's the start of a line of events that will lead to people marrying all sorts of things surely? If he can describe how gay marriage causally or probabilistically leads to any of these things in a way that straight marriage cannot, then he can get around this, but I'd like to see him try.

[Phatscotty]

Let nature take it's course.

The beastiality stuff is just a distraction that shuts the mind down the moment the word is heard.

I am for getting the government out of marriage. While I don't think that is realistic in the near term (unless we finally admit we are broke and nobody get's a check/"right" from the gov't) and government certainly isn't getting out overnight. All we can try to do try to reduce government involvement, or try to get the government more involved. You know which way I am trying to move.

Overall, I just wanted to discuss if marriage is a "right" or not. The OP was to show that even liberal justices of the supreme court have orally argued "marriage cannot be a right"

[azezzo]

I say homosexuals should be just as happy/miserable as heterosexuals that being said, no long term commitment should be entered into lightly, the ramifications last long afterwards

[crispybits]

Overall, I just wanted to discuss if marriage is a "right" or not. The OP was to show that even liberal justices of the supreme court have orally argued "marriage cannot be a right"

I don't think too many (read: any, at least on here) people are arguing that marriage is a fundamental right. Equality and the civil rights of all people is a fundamental right though.

[BigBallinStalin]

Except that for it not to be an appeal to tradition, there has to be evidence showed that the tradition has stood up to mulitple challenges similar to this and not changed at all. The modern nuclear family concept that he is hanging the argument around is a relatively recent invention (culturally speaking) - even as little as a couple of hundred years ago families were generally extended way beyond the bounds of just "mother, father and children" and would have included other relatives and non-related stakeholders all living in the same place and all being responsible for raising the children, working, etc. And in modern times there have been other major shifts in how family units operate, with a rise of single parent families for just one example. This 1950s dream of mum, dad, 2 kids and the white picket fence isn't the only working model (and it wasn't even then) and to try and shoehorn definitions into fitting it at the expense of the people in society who through accident of birth could never fit it, that's naive at best and bigoted at worst.

The slippery slope argument remains a fallacy unless it can be shown, through a causal/probabilistic chain of events, that the end of the slope is likely. Now all PS has done is point to a court case currently ongoing about incest, and made vague references to cases involving polygamy. Firstly, these cases are happening without gay marriage being recognised, they don't need the slippery slope to happen to get these other things happening. There is no causal link between gay marriage being recognised and polygamy or incest or whatever being recognised, especially with the argument the way I put it, which keeps marriage between two people with all the other rules in place but just stops illegal gender discrimination.

Secondly, it wrongly states that gay marriage would be at the top of this slippery slope. MARRIAGE is at the top of this slippery slope. Once you allow people to start marrying people, then what's to stop people marrying animals, or toasters, or the moon? If PS is really serious about ridding the world of this horrible slippery slope, he should be arguing that we get rid of all forms of marriage entirely (not just the government recognition of them, but the concept itself), because that's the start of a line of events that will lead to people marrying all sorts of things surely? If he can describe how gay marriage causally or probabilistically leads to any of these things in a way that straight marriage cannot, then he can get around this, but I'd like to see him try.

Okay, we're on the same page.

[Woodruff]

Let nature take it's course.
The beastiality stuff is just a distraction that shuts the mind down the moment the word is heard.

Yet, you're the one that keeps bringing it up.

I am for getting the government out of marriage.

If this was honestly the end-sum of your position, then you wouldn't be holding the position that homosexuals shouldn't marry. You wouldn't be parroting the "tradition of marriage" bullshit that you spout. If it was honestly your position that you just want smaller government, you wouldn't be trying to force the government into everyone's bedroom. The fact of the matter is that is NOT your honest position, you just try to weasel out of it by backing toward that position when you have to.

[Woodruff]

I say homosexuals should be just as happy/miserable as heterosexuals that being said, no long term commitment should be entered into lightly, the ramifications last long afterwards

Certainly, that last is true.

[Phatscotty]

Overall, I just wanted to discuss if marriage is a "right" or not. The OP was to show that even liberal justices of the supreme court have orally argued "marriage cannot be a right"

I don't think too many (read: any, at least on here) people are arguing that marriage is a fundamental right. Equality and the civil rights of all people is a fundamental right though.

Life, Liberty and pursuit of happiness (opportunity) are rights, here in America. But before I go any further, I need to know your definition of equality. Do you mean we are all born equal? or we all end up equal? or what? Sorry I have to ask what seems to be a simple question, except for the definition of equality has also been redefined.

[crispybits]

OK well equality in the sense we're talking about in this discussion is that there are certain protected characteristics (including, but not limited to, race, gender, religious faith and age) that the law says are not allowed to be used as factors of discrimination. As in every person, in the eyes of the principles of law, is gender neutral, race neutral, etc. These characteristics should never be taken into account when assessing the legality of an action. If a man does something, and it is legal, then it should also be legal for a woman to do the same thing (it might not be physically possible, but it should be legal). Similarly if a white person does something, and it is illegal, it should also be illegal for a black person to do the same thing. And so on and so on...

The way the law protects these characteristics is that it often bans people asking for details of them from you. If an employer is sent a resume with a gender neutral name like Sam, that could be either male or female, the employer is not allowed to ask the candidate for their gender before deciding if they want to conduct an interview, any more than they could ask if Sam is black or white, or if Sam is catholic or muslim.

(That's not the strict legal definition, it's my own words, but I think it covers it)

[jonesthecurl]

Scotty - let me ask you one question - should men and women be treated legally differently? Should someone's gender (whatever their sexuality) be a grounds for different legal treatment by the government? Should a man be granted a right because he is a man, that a woman is denied because she is a woman (or vice versa)?

all people should be treated the same as much as we can. Of course I realize that women seem to have more rights when it comes to custody of a child. However "rights" have nothing to do with whether or not the person excersizing them is a male or a female. A person has rights.

A person owes three lives.

[Phatscotty]

Let nature take it's course.
The beastiality stuff is just a distraction that shuts the mind down the moment the word is heard.

Yet, you're the one that keeps bringing it up.

I am for getting the government out of marriage.

If this was honestly the end-sum of your position, then you wouldn't be holding the position that homosexuals shouldn't marry. You wouldn't be parroting the "tradition of marriage" bullshit that you spout. If it was honestly your position that you just want smaller government, you wouldn't be trying to force the government into everyone's bedroom. The fact of the matter is that is NOT your honest position, you just try to weasel out of it by backing toward that position when you have to.

Everything you just said is a complete lie. The only time I brought up beastiality was to tell others to stop talking about it, and you know that, which makes you a big fat liar. Letting the states decide has always been my position. Everybody knows that, therefore everyone knows you are lying.

You should strive to be more than a liar and a hypocrite Woodruff. You aren't even good at it.

I am going to foe you now, but I bet you still keep stalking me anyways. Tells us all we need to know

[Phatscotty]

OK well equality in the sense we're talking about in this discussion is that there are certain protected characteristics (including, but not limited to, race, gender, religious faith and age) that the law says are not allowed to be used as factors of discrimination.

Discrimination in what? Everything? Based on your description of equality in the realm of gender, you would have to agree it's discriminatory to refuse a man entrance into a woman's bathroom. No? why or why not?

As in every person, in the eyes of the principles of law, is gender neutral, race neutral, etc. These characteristics should never be taken into account when assessing the legality of an action. If a man does something, and it is legal, then it should also be legal for a woman to do the same thing (it might not be physically possible, but it should be legal). Similarly if a white person does something, and it is illegal, it should also be illegal for a black person to do the same thing. And so on and so on...

Does that include letting girls play on boy's football teams? Does that include ANY action known to man? As far as marriage goes, everyone has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. Your spiel only works in a post redefined marriage era, of which America is not.

The way the law protects these characteristics is that it often bans people asking for details of them from you. If an employer is sent a resume with a gender neutral name like Sam, that could be either male or female, the employer is not allowed to ask the candidate for their gender before deciding if they want to conduct an interview, any more than they could ask if Sam is black or white, or if Sam is catholic or muslim.

I understand the workplace, that's an easy one. It's a little different from marriage though. I think you have to redefine a lot of things in order to reach your conclusion. If that's the case, the other side is just going to redefine stuff too, and that's why this redefining stuff leads to chaos, because it means that nothing can mean what it's supposed to mean anymore, it only means what we want it to mean. That's just not how it works.

If you missed my bit about civil unions and my full support of them, granted they can include all the same rights a marriage does, why is that not satisfactory?

[Woodruff]

Let nature take it's course.
The beastiality stuff is just a distraction that shuts the mind down the moment the word is heard.

Yet, you're the one that keeps bringing it up.

I am for getting the government out of marriage.

If this was honestly the end-sum of your position, then you wouldn't be holding the position that homosexuals shouldn't marry. You wouldn't be parroting the "tradition of marriage" bullshit that you spout. If it was honestly your position that you just want smaller government, you wouldn't be trying to force the government into everyone's bedroom. The fact of the matter is that is NOT your honest position, you just try to weasel out of it by backing toward that position when you have to.

Everything you just said is a complete lie. The only time I brought up beastiality was to tell others to stop talking about it, and you know that, which makes you a big fat liar.

Hell Phatscotty, that hasn't even been true IN THIS SINGLE THREAD. You're the liar, and why you continue to lie in the face of easy documentation is beyond me. But you've done this numerous times in the past, so I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.

You should strive to be more than a liar and a hypocrite Woodruff. You aren't even good at it.

I'm not, that's true...because I try very hard not to do so. You, on the other hand, seem to be quite an expert at both. Must be all the practice you get with tehm around here.

I am going to foe you now, but I bet you still keep stalking me anyways. Tells us all we need to know

The truth must really hurt you.

[Woodruff]

If you missed my bit about civil unions and my full support of them, granted they can include all the same rights a marriage does, why is that not satisfactory?

"Separate but equal" is not equality. This has been demonstrated quite ably in similar circumstances. You'd think someone with Martin Luther King, Junior as their avatar would know better.

[Phatscotty]

If you missed my bit about civil unions and my full support of them, granted they can include all the same rights a marriage does, why is that not satisfactory?

"Separate but equal" is not equality. This has been demonstrated quite ably in similar circumstances. You'd think someone with Martin Luther King, Junior as their avatar would know better.

but you are trying to twist the good Reverend and "redefine" him into something he was not, for your own greedy purposes. You can't just change definitions of things, and then slap a MLK sticker on it! Shame on you!

Like I said, you aren't even good at this, and I wasn't talking to you anyways. Mind your own business (if that's even possible)