Hornet Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 Joseph, Yes, we are a democracy and the majority rules however unreasonable it may be at times. But, we are also protected by the Constitution against infringements or our rights which includes issues of equality. Further, the Constitution insures religious freedom. We cannot impose our religious views on others. A church can grant or deny marriage to whomever they wish. However, they cannot impose their religious doctrines on others. George Maybe religious people should come up with non-religious arguments against same-sex marriage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dblad Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 God defines what marriage ought to be. God says that same-sex marriage is wrong. I think that this is better than saying, "Same-sex marriage is wrong because two people of the same sex cannot procreate" or "Same-sex marriage is wrong because it is unnatural." Hornet, this formulation certainly works well for a subset of people, but it doesn't work for everyone. I think most everyone posting here would agree that you have correctly stated the core argument against same sex marriage from the point of view of that subset. And yes, I agree that it's better for people to be honest about the religious sources of their arguments than to try to frame it as though it were not religious. From outside that subset, there isn't a lot of agreement, because there isn't agreement on how to understand the authority of sacred texts. I could say, for example, that all the passages in the Bible regarding sexual behavior are not what God says, but what people said while they were looking for or experiencing God. Alternatively, I could say that those texts are authoritative, but that you don't understand them correctly. I could even say that I have been given a new revelation, and that that supersedes the prior revelation. Since our society is comprised of religious people of many different inclinations, along with a healthy number of non-religious people, there isn't a way to present a definitive account of what God says that would be persuasive for society as a whole. Dennis, I would suggest that if the premise is unsound, then the conclusions that follow from it would also be unsound. If someone wants to say I don't agree with gay marriage because it violates my personal religious convictions, that is fine with me. My response would be, 'Then don't marry someone of the same sex.' But, I would also say, "Don't tell other people what they cannot do based on your religious convictions.' (unless there is harm involved). I am still waiting for this rational argument against gay marriage - seriously. I am not trying to argumentative. If there is a sound argument, someone should bring it forth. George George, it sounds to me as though you're suggesting that no argument derived from anything but empirical data may be rational as far as you're concerned. If that's what you mean, then no argument from values of any kind, religious or otherwise, can be considered rational. It sound to me more like you mean that there can be no empirical argument against same-sex marriage more than that there can be no rational argument. This may be the source of our disagreement over this topic. I think that the argument I mentioned above is perfectly rational, even though it's wrong; you didn't address it except to say that you consider the premise to be unsound, but I would argue that you can't PROVE the premise is unsound, you can only disagree with it. Values are not empirical, but they can be rational. Blessings, Dennis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 George, it sounds to me as though you're suggesting that no argument derived from anything but empirical data may be rational as far as you're concerned. Dennis, No, what I am suggesting as that any 'values' argument used to impose one's personal values on someone else is not sufficient in and of itself. George Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 Maybe religious people should come up with non-religious arguments against same-sex marriage. I think that is what they try to do. But, when we scratch the logic surface, we find it is a religious or values based point of view. George Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dblad Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 Dennis, No, what I am suggesting as that any 'values' argument used to impose one's personal values on someone else is not sufficient in and of itself. George All right, but not sufficient for what? To be rational? Or to be persuasive? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 All right, but not sufficient for what? To be rational? Or to be persuasive? To deny gay people the right to marry. To deny African Americans equal rights. To . . . . . George Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dblad Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 Persuasive, then. I can agree with that. But that isn't the same as saying that those arguments aren't rational. Dennis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephM Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 Joseph, Yes, we are a democracy and the majority rules however unreasonable it may be at times. But, we are also protected by the Constitution against infringements or our rights which includes issues of equality. Further, the Constitution insures religious freedom. We cannot impose our religious views on others. A church can grant or deny marriage to whomever they wish. However, they cannot impose their religious doctrines on others. George George, The constitution grants no such right as recognizing same sex marriages. Perhaps you can make a case that we treat people different tax-wise and otherwise based on their marital status but marriage was defined before the constitution was signed and it is meant to change no such thing.as that definition. Marriage is not strictly a religious view in this country though it may be held such by many. We deny people all kinds of rights based on what we feel are the good of the whole society whether a religious slant exists or not. . Things aren't going to be fair to everybody nor are they equal for everybody in a society such as ours. You said in another post " I would suggest that if the premise is unsound, then the conclusions that follow from it would also be unsound." That itself is a logical fallacy for sure see Wiki..on logical fallacies. Argument from fallacy – assumes that if an argument for some conclusion is fallacious, then the conclusion itself is false. joseph Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 Dennis, I am getting really repetitive and, I know, it sounds argumentative, but I am still waiting on a rational argument against gay marriage. I don't think asserting religious values is a rational basis for banning gay marriage. George Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 The constitution grants no such right as recognizing same sex marriages. You are right. But, it does guarantee equality before the law. It wasn't so long ago that Whites could not marry African-Americans. But, thankfully, that is now history because of the equal rights protection of our Constitution. Gays, IMO, are not far behind. Homophobia is a losing hand. George Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephM Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 George, Equality does not apply to everything. Marriage is not a right. it is a defined privilege reserved by society here at present to a man and woman. What if we had a person who wants to marry an animal? Do we recognize that? How about mutiple partner mixtures? Do we change the definition to whatever sounds like equality as long as it appears to do me no harm? I think not. You don't have to be homophobic to believe that same sex marriage may not be in the best interest of our society. Joseph Just for the record. My family includes gays whom i love dearly and i wouldn't try to change a thing concerning their identity.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 Equality does not apply to everything. Marriage is not a right. it is a defined privilege reserved by society here at present to a man and woman. Joseph, the issue is the legal consequences of marriage - taxation, inheritance, etc. These are very much legal issues to which equality does apply. I personally think that government should get out of the marriage business and deal with this as a civil unions for straights and gays. If one wants a separate, church sanctioned marriage, that would be a personal decision between the couple and the church. George Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephM Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 Joseph, the issue is the legal consequences of marriage - taxation, inheritance, etc. These are very much legal issues to which equality does apply. (snip) i agree that there is a sense of unfairness when it comes to those issues of tax, inheritance, medical privileged, etc. All of those things can be addressed and solved separately if society dictates. However decisions by government are not always in my personal sense of fairness because their decisions are meant to do the good for what they see as the most people and the prevailing view of society itself. Unfortunately the consequences will not always be equally burdened by the people. IE When i owned a small business, i got no tax breaks even though i employed 5 people. Yet to entice those who employed 50 or more they gave then exemptions from certain taxes for 5 years to establish themselves here. That to me is not fair to 10 of us small businessmen who together employ 50 and have to bear the burden of the larger. But that is life and the authority and role tthat government plays for the good of the whole. So yes there are inequalities of which some have been resolved and hopefully some of these you mention will be addressed to the satisfaction of the many but recognizing same sex marriages as the norm identical to that between a man and a woman to me is not an equality issue nor do i intuit its acceptance as the norm as a positive benefit to future society here but that is just my non religious opinion and i am not here to convince anyone it is other than that.. Joseph Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulS Posted October 29, 2012 Author Share Posted October 29, 2012 ... but recognizing same sex marriages as the norm identical to that between a man and a woman to me is not an equality issue nor do i intuit its acceptance as the norm as a positive benefit to future society here but that is just my non religious opinion. Joseph So, referencing my opening post, I don't understand how gays marrying in any way diminishes hetro marriage. I'm interested Joseph, in how you intuit its acceptance as not a positive benefit to future society? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neon Genesis Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 (edited) George, Equality does not apply to everything. Marriage is not a right. it is a defined privilege reserved by society here at present to a man and woman. What if we had a person who wants to marry an animal? Do we recognize that? How about mutiple partner mixtures? Do we change the definition to whatever sounds like equality as long as it appears to do me no harm? I think not. You don't have to be homophobic to believe that same sex marriage may not be in the best interest of our society. Joseph Just for the record. My family includes gays whom i love dearly and i wouldn't try to change a thing concerning their identity.. As a gay man, I will say that I find your comparison of my sexuality to the raping of an animal to be highly offensive and bigoted. I don't think it is representative of the third point of the eight points of The Center For Progressive Christianity either. Edited October 29, 2012 by Neon Genesis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephM Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 My apologies to you Neon. I find nothing wrong with your sexuality. The issue is marriage definition not your sexuality. Disagreement is not intolerance. So, referencing my opening post, I don't understand how gays marrying in any way diminishes hetro marriage. I'm interested Joseph, in how you intuit its acceptance as not a positive benefit to future society? Paul, This is a view for which i offer no empirical evidence. However i will say a couple things that seem to make some sense at least to myself since you ask. To accept same sex marriages at this time in my view would pose a blanket of concerns for government regulations the least of which includes taxation and a host of other ripple effects that would then require the equal treatment of spouses for gays and lesbians that society has purposely previously denied to promote families as defined by a man and a woman with the hopes of continued procreation and a more balanced raising of children within its beliefs. I do not deny that religion alone is a big reason for many. However, i don't believe it is for me as i put no more emphasis on the Bible as God speaking to us than any other book that speaks to me. Our state has a favored conception of marriage for more than just religious reasons. It sees family and procreation as important to its continuance. Because of this it shows favor to such in many ways and imo, rightfully so because that is part of civilized societies function. ( to do those things it sees as most beneficial to its view of society) This on the surface seem unfair to some but equality across the board will not always give society what it is looking for. Of course not all married couples can procreate but the state has no advance knowledge of such nor would it be appropriate for them to violate privacy imo by doing so. And besides, even without children it seems to me that the image presented to other children of a man and woman in marriage as the norm is a more balanced image to society as it exists here to promote that continuance. Looking at nature we see in animals and insects that each has a position assigned whether by birth or its societal group. All cannot be treated equal for the good of the whole. Some must give up their lives to protect the group while some do nothing but produce young. And others nothing but gather food, etc... Some are rewarded more favorably than others. Would WE ASK ...IS THAT FAIR? Now there is much debate and argument on both sides of the issue at this time. I do not say that to ban same sex marriage is right or wrong, logical or illogical, fair or unfair. I can only say that my choice for society at this time is against. If yours is for it then so be it and let us live in peace with our differences. Does that make me homophobic or a bigot? I don't think so, my brother is gay and a more loving, thoughtful and finer human being i have not yet met and i love him dearly. He has never to my knowledge demanded i accept same sex marriages and he has solved all of the other problems with my assistance related to a male partner (inheritance, medical issues, beneficiaries, etc.) except taxes through wisdom and compliance within the present system of society. Joseph Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulS Posted October 29, 2012 Author Share Posted October 29, 2012 (edited) A couple of things I'd say to your comments, Joseph: 1. I don't think it's so much a case of 'previosuly denying' homosexual marriage, but rather it has finally come to a point where society are starting to see the need and respect for it. It's more a case of ommission than a deliberate "gays shall not marry". I think we are finally starting to recognise the humanity of homosexuals and are starting to make room for homosexuality in a world that has been otherwise ignorant of homosexuality and it's ability to be just as loving as hetrosexual love. Much like we moved toward abolition for slaves - it was slowly recognised that the prejudice against them was no longer acceptable. 2. Taxes and changes to regulation can be overcome. I'm sure there was much financial pain and regulatory change with the abolition of slavery, or the setting up of the US as an independent country, or the recognition of defacto relationships etc etc. The day we let our hestitancy to change our bureacracy to overcome wrong would indeed be a sad day. 3. In regards to a 'future' society, I see the view that "the image presented to other children of a man and woman in marriage as the norm is a more balanced image to society as it exists here to promote that continuance" becoming obsolete, or at the very least, children having the ability to discern that for some people, homosexual marriage is the norm and that this is perfectly okay. It's up to society to educate it's chldren and show them that scientifically, people don't choose to be gay, or fall in love, or wish to be married to somebody for life. It's just nature at work. 4. Sure, looking at nature we do see in animals and insects that each has a position assigned whether by birth or its societal group, but there are many differences too between us and the animal kingdom. I don't know too many animals which participate in a representative democracy, that offialise partnering with somebody for life, or in that case designing and implementing a myriad of rules for the dissolution of such a relationship (maybe other than the black widow who eats her ex). 5. I think it's a lot easier to say "live in peace with our differences" when we're not the group being discriminated against or denied our wholesomeness as fellow human beings. Science says gay people don't choose their sexual orientation. How can we deny them the same rights as hetros who also don't choose their sexual orientation? 6. I'm happy for your brother that being legally prohibited from marrying the love of his life works for him. Clearly it doesn't for many, many homosexuals. Your views are your views and of course you are entitled to them. To me it doesn't matter what your views make you but rather if your views harm or benefit greater society. I am still at a loss to understand just how homosexual marriage threatens hetrosexual marriage. I should imagine hetros will continue to marry and breed even when gays are allowed to marry. In Australia there are no significant financial incentives to marrying one of the opposite sex for the purpose of breeding. I find it interesting that most marriage vows don't usually include any mention whatsover about procreaton being the reason for the marriage ceremony but rather focus on the love one partner has for the other. There's no mention (usually) of government subsidies or the economic advanatges of becoming married, but rather just simple love is expressed. If I was gay, I'd like to be able to do that with the one I love also. To deny me that would be to say that my love and relationship is something less than a hetero's, IMO. "I, ____, take you, ____, to be my (husband/wife). I promise to be true to you in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health. I will love you and honor you all the days of my life". I reckon this works just as well for gays. This article addresses some of my beliefs more eloquently: http://www.australianmarriageequality.com/faqs.htm Edited October 29, 2012 by PaulS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephM Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 Paul, What we are talking about here is not about recognizing the humanity of homosexuals nor of the ignorance of some people of homosexuals nor the treatment they have received from parts of the population. Nor are we talking about forbidding anyone of their free expression of a loving relationship with a member of the same sex. We are talking about a definition of marriage that in spite of what is said in any vows was intended by society here to form family units that procreate the species for the survival of the species and to fit in line with what society sees as its ideal family. While it is true that we can still procreate out of the circle of marriage, its intentions within this society was for order and family values that were in line with the dictates of society and its ideals in general. (which do and may change) Therefore it was designed to define the relationship between a man and a woman whereby the hope of offspring would be a natural progression and in societies view best for the raising of its future generations. In effect, you say homosexuals are being discriminated against by society not recognizing their relationships as the norm of marriage. Well i would not deny that their relationship is committed and loving and i would even agree from my experience that it can be as committed and loving or even moreso than a heterosexual couple but it cannot be the same as the intentions of marriage as defined which includes the consummation of that marriage in sexual intercourse in the possibility of offspring. In my view, any discrimination on that point, is from nature and not society created. While it is true society has in ignorance treated homosexuals poorly in the past here in the US. i think that treatment is changing for the better howbeit more slowly than the some would like it. I would not compare slavery with the refusal of society to change its definition of marriage to two of the same sex or some other definition to please individuals. To me that is quite a stretch. The issues raised imo, do not require changing the definition of marriage into something different. The issues, as i see it, are not with the word marriage but with treatment and rights outside of that definition and should in my view be addressed as such. It seems to me inevitably in a democracy / republic certain views will prevail. My view on the definition of marriage harms homosexuals no more than an opposing view would harm mine. Each country can decide for themselves and rectify injustices as they are realized as such. I do not see the present definition of marriage as a problem in itself. Society as a whole has the ultimate responsibility to regulate itself and all are welcome to provide their input.. I have provided mine and it may be in disagreement with many and lack any persuasive argument which is not my intention anyway (i am only sharing a view). I have answered your curiosity as honestly as i could and live in peace with those views. Is this view subject to change? Yes but perhaps not from rhetoric reasoning or argument that has a show of reason or logic or subjective rational whereby men are convinced by it and that the other that is not convinced is merely irrational, homophobic or bigoted for disagreement. But rather a change that would come from within that speaks from ones knowledge and experience and fulfillment of the part one plays in this drama we call human life. Does reason and logic create reality or is it the other way around? Cheers, Joseph . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 Looking at nature we see in animals and insects that each has a position assigned whether by birth or its societal group. All cannot be treated equal for the good of the whole. Some must give up their lives to protect the group while some do nothing but produce young. And others nothing but gather food, etc... Some are rewarded more favorably than others. Would WE ASK ...IS THAT FAIR? Joseph, This begs several questions. What do you suggest is the position in our society that a gay person should have? Should insect behavior be a model for humans? Because unfairness exists in the universe, should we as human beings, not strive to make our society more fair (recognizing we cannot achieve perfection)? George Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 . . . and i would even agree from my experience that it can be as committed and loving or even more than a heterosexual couple but it cannot be the same as the intentions of marriage as defined which includes the consummation of that marriage in sexual intercourse in the possibility of offspring. Joseph, Sterile heterosexual people or post-menopausal women cannot have children You would allow them to marry? (BTW, gays can procreate with a surrogate parent.) George Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephM Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 George, Society does indeed allow them to marry. I would not change the definition because someone might be sterile. That would be to me an unwise decision on societies part. The intentions of marriage were to preserve the male/female unit with the hopes of reproduction and child rearing for society. Because a person is sterile does not alter intentions of society. Joseph concerning BTW... Yes they indeed can and it is not forbidden. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 Joseph, So, marriage is for the purpose of procreation, but you would allow heterosexuals who cannot procreate to marry but deny it to gays even if they can through surrogacy? This seems inconsistent to me. You mention the "intentions of marriage." This begs the question, whose intentions? It also overlooks the other benefits of marriage such as economic, companionship, sex, etc. George Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephM Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 George, Procreation doesn't physically need marriage but society needs marriage as a way to influence procreation and the rearing and educating of offspring. Yes, i am not in favor of not allowing the institution of marriage as defined to include same sex couples. That appears inconsistent to you but to me not out of line with intentions. Whose intentions? Societies of course. The benefits of marriage you mentions are outside the definition. They were put there by society because they felt it was in their best interests to promote their ideal. That ideal may change and the benefits modified but the definition and benefits are not one and the same. Joseph Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 educating of offspring. Yes, i am not in favor of not allowing the institution of marriage as defined to include same sex couples. That appears inconsistent to you but to me not out of line with intentions. Whose intentions? Societies of course. Society was against inter-racial marriage. Was it wrong for the courts to change this? George Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephM Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 Society was against inter-racial marriage. Was it wrong for the courts to change this? George Society set in place the courts.... to look out for its best interests. Its not a case of right and wrong. It is a case of society evolving as it it was setup to do with the assistance of the courts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.