176 replies to this topic

[howeda7]

Dig a little deeper and you will see there is little distinction between reason and the heart. Reason begets “rationalization” which can lead to virtually any behavior, moral or not.


I'll agree that "because this is the way we've always done it" is not valid reasoning in itself. But that doesn't invalidate the precedent either. Are we saying today that the morality of all previous human history was defective because they did not support same-sex marriage? Such a stance requires a very elevated sense of one's self morality.

Nothing has changed regarding the morality of encouraging couples to get married and remain faithful for life. No one is tossing that out. All that has changed is the understanding that gay people are not 'defective' or dangerous and should be treated the same as everyone else. Most people thought this for hundreds of years. They were wrong. It has nothing to do with invalidating everything else about what those same people thought about morality or traditions. Coming to the realization that slavery was wrong didn't invalidate everything our founding fathers believed either. But they were clearly wrong on that issue.

[biggentleben]

So here's where I see a big difference: because the LAW says same sex marriage is legal does not force the CHURCH of your particular belief to honor, perform, or even respect those marriages. Much like a fitness center could tell a 400-lb man that he would not make a good personal trainer and face no real legal threat, a church can say that they will not allow a same sex marriage to take place in their facility and there is no threat to the church for saying so.

I have heard way too many arguments that boil down to personal religious beliefs. Attempting to legislate religion is always a fallacy as social definitions of religion are always changing. 150 years ago, many Christian faiths in the US endorsed slavery. 100 years ago, many Christian faiths in the US endorsed excluding women from the workforce outside of particular positions (nursing, teaching, and secretarial work, primarily). 50 years ago, many Christian faiths felt a black man and white woman marrying was outside of their religion. Legislate based on what's best/right/equitable for society, not for a religion.

[PseudoSABR]

Any institution that hasn't changed in 4000 years, probably could use some revision. Just sayin'

[Hornhead]

Right, that's not a valid reason which means we have to talk about the actual reasons. I would never suggest traditions are wrong insofar as they are traditions, but they aren't right for tht reason either. I prefer to evaluate the reasons, not its longevity.

As for past rmorality I do think things change - laws certainly. I even think that thirty years go SSM may not have fit because there was significantly less interest in having stable relationships. Of course, religious persecution plays a factor there as well, so it gets tricky. The situation now? Not tricky in my eyes.

Overturning thousands of years of unquestioned tradition until very recently demands compelling reasons for redefining marriage to something other than male-female. I don’t see them.

Preserving order far supersedes encouraging moral behavior in the legal realm. I view right and wrong independent of law, time, and popular opinion. We seem to differ in this regard. As for evolving morality, what new moral ground has been broken in the last 1,000 years? Women's suffrage comes to mind, but the Bible teaches equality among the sexes in God's eyes, although with different roles. Pretty radical stuff in its time.

[biggentleben]

Overturning thousands of years of unquestioned tradition until very recently demands compelling reasons for redefining marriage to something other than male-female. I don’t see them.

First, it's never been unquestioned. It's never been exclusive in any culture. Marriage as defined by the state and by the church are not one in the same. Many go around the church to get married through the state, so it's obviously not unquestioned as there are already multiple definitions going around. If the angle of why same-sex is your issue, why interracial couples (of any combination of gender), why international couples, why divorced couples? You could extrapolate things from the Bible to state that any of the above are wrong. It'd be a gross misinterpretation of God's Word, but you could continue down the road that many have over the years in this country in order to put down someone else in the society. The difference in this country being that churches can do that, but it is not the nation doing it. Hitler combined both, and obviously, that's an incredibly dangerous road to go down.

Preserving order far supersedes encouraging moral behavior in the legal realm. I view right and wrong independent of law, time, and popular opinion. We seem to differ in this regard. As for evolving morality, what new moral ground has been broken in the last 1,000 years? Women's suffrage comes to mind, but the Bible teaches equality among the sexes in God's eyes, although with different roles. Pretty radical stuff in its time.

Moral ground involving slavery, racism, sexism, and the "worthiness" of those who are not part of the church has evolved tremendously within the church in the last 1,000 years. While slavery was outlawed in this country, many Christian denominations did not object to passive slavery that existed in the way house servants were treated in this country or the way people were still enslaved throughout the world. Now you see active movements of Christian believers working against forced labor in any form all over the world. I could go on and explain each, but if you don't see how each has changed in the church's approach to each issue, you're simply blinding yourself. What is stated in the Bible vs. what is the actions of the church have not been equal, and they continue not to be. Using moral/religious authority in this case simply does not work. Especially since it does nothing to affect that religion's ability to discriminate and hate all they want even with this legislation change.

[Hornhead]

First, it's never been unquestioned. It's never been exclusive in any culture.

Male-female defined every definition of marriage throughout secular history.

Moral ground involving slavery, racism, sexism, and the "worthiness" of those who are not part of the church has evolved tremendously within the church in the last 1,000 years.

Debate of these issues took place during the time of Christ. Not exactly treading new moral ground here.

[Ultima Ratio]

1. In order for a culture survive and thrive, it must foster (A) - the boding between men and women.
2. A - the birth and rearing of children
3. A - the bonding between men and children
4. A - a healthy masculine identity
5. A - the transformation of adolescents into sexually responsible adults.
6. The institution of (traditional) marriage is the only kind of relationship that can promote all 1-5.
7. Therefore, society has an interest in promoting, encouraging and incentivizing male and female to not only procreate, but to marry and remain married to promote all 1-5, which are necessary to a culture's survival and well-being.
8. Therefore, society has an interest in encouraging (traditional) marriage.
9. Homosexual relationships cannot accomplish some or all of 1-5 (dare I say in principle -- will this be understood yet?).
10. Therefore, society has no compelling interest to promote, encourage and incentivize homosexual unions.

There's an argument in standard form. Granted, it does utilize necessary and sufficient conditions.

I take 1-5 from Paul Nathanson, a Canadian sociologist, scholar and homosexual, who concludes from his own research that people are "wrong in assuming that any society can do without [traditional] marriage... and same sex marriage is a bad idea, while gay relationships are not a bad idea." I agree. I don't care what kind of sex you like.

If nothing else, this is instructive as to why marriage should not be re/undefined. The relationships of homosexuals and heterosexuals are distinctly different. Therefore, the same word "marriage" does not fittingly apply to both circumstances, purposes and outcomes. Therefore, a different word should be used even in the case that society wants to disregard the substantial merits of the argument (that society has an interest in promoting traditional marriage and not homosexual unions) -- but says, whatever, it's about fairness. It's a distinction with a difference, deserving its own word.

There is no appeal to religion, ickiness, nor arbitrary definition (1-5) in the forgoing, so can we please stop with the red herrings, staw men and ad hominem... of course not, that's why it such a joy to post here.

Furthermore, you might agree with the argument above but say so what, marriage is good, and while society has no interest in encouraging and supporting homosexual unions, adopted kids by homosexuals in a committed marriage-like relationship can fulfill 1-5 pretty well. I wound't disagree that some can, but in principle (there I go again), and principle is what we base laws on, children with two moms or two dads obviously are deprived of a mother or father, necessarily. Proponents of Homosexual "marriage" must then claim that neither a mother or father is essential to the raising of children. Both claims are implicit, if not explicit: 1) Fathers are not particularly essential or important to children, as a father has nothing unique to offer a child which that child could not receive from a second female parent, and 2) Mothers are not particularly essential or important to children, as a mother has nothing unique to offer a child which that child could not receive from a second father.

Both messages are unhealthy, and empirically false.

[TheLeviathan]

Overturning thousands of years of unquestioned tradition until very recently demands compelling reasons for redefining marriage to something other than male-female. I don’t see them.

At the end of the day, you are choosing not to see them. There are lots of things different between gay rights and civil rights, but one thing that is the same is that those opposed refused to see reason no matter how apparent it is. At the end of the day, you have a deeply held belief that you don't want to have changed and aren't interested in hearing anything to the contrary. That's fine, but don't pretend it's the merit of the arguments that's the problem.

Preserving order far supersedes encouraging moral behavior in the legal realm. I view right and wrong independent of law, time, and popular opinion. We seem to differ in this regard. .

I would agree that preserving order is the key, that's at root in my beliefs about SSM in fact. I would also agree that some moral values are unchanging. I would not, however, place marriage even close to that category.

[TheLeviathan]

[quote name='Ultima Ratio']Therefore, society has no compelling interest to promote, encourage and incentivize homosexual unions. [/QUOTE]

Here is where you breakdown. If you were to hold to your standards (and maybe you believe this, if so, fine) then only traditional marriages that meet all 1-5 would be allowed and divorces would be illegal. You dismiss homosexual marriages because "some or all" of the premises cannot be met. And yet, this is the case for many heterosexual marriages as well. If you can play fast and loose with how much of 1-5 is required for hetrosexual marriage, why not homosexual marriages as well?

You are selectively picking the premises that matter to you to construct your definition. I can very much take issue with how "required" they are. Male bonding with children is a very new concept. (Like, within the last 200 years) Ditto the "transformation" into sexually responsible adults. In the past - women were just married off as soon as they had their first period. There was no such transformation.

You've conveniently selected your premises and claim it's about the "principle" of your argument I deny your premises and history is pretty heavily on my side.

[/quote]Both messages are unhealthy, and empirically false.[/QUOTE]

Most empirical studies have found little difference either way. But, since you claim you have empirical evidence - I'd like to see it.

[Brock Beauchamp]

and principle is what we base laws on

While I'm not going to argue in length over the rest of this, I cannot stress just how much I disagree with this. Laws are not based on principle. They are based on reality.

After all, every court in this land has the right to permanently strike down a law based on merit. If a politician creates a law saying "No one shall declare themselves Warlord of the Moon", that is technically fair "in principle" and most everyone on the planet would agree that no, it's not right for someone to declare themselves Warlord of the Moon.

But you don't go creating a law based on that "principle", especially in this country, because any judge would strike it down due to its lack of discernible impact on society (laws have to be applicable and have a reason to exist or they can be nullified) and whether it's a just law "in principle" is completely irrelevant in the eyes of the court.

[Ultima Ratio]

If you were to hold to your standards (and maybe you believe this, if so, fine) then only traditional marriages that meet all 1-5 would be allowed and divorces would be illegal. You dismiss homosexual marriages because "some or all" of the premises cannot be met. And yet, this is the case for many heterosexual marriages as well. If you can play fast and loose with how much of 1-5 is required for hetrosexual marriage, why not homosexual marriages as well?

I'm against divorce, it is especially harmful to children. It's far to easy to divorce and a real shame on today's society.

Heterosexuals can meet all of 1-5 in principle (I think you are still not understanding this term), homosexuals cannot. Some homosexuals may be able to fulfill parts of 1-5 in with some success, and in some cases may do better than heterosexuals (except the procreation part of course -- which is the rub), at achieving these. There are, after all some really bad parents out there, and plenty of single moms and dads, far too many.

Let me try an example to clear up this confusion. Men are in principle stronger than women. This means that the nature of a man is such that his physiology operates and is constructed to be physically stronger, with bigger muscle mass and testosterone. Women are, by nature (in principle), physically weaker. Of course, though, there are many women who are in fact stronger than men. This is an exception (or accident) to the rule (or essence/principle nature) of the strength of men and women.

So, just because some heterosexuals don't procreate and end up being bad parents has bearing on heterosexaul relationships (marriage) in principle.
Contrariwise, homosexuals, by nature, cannot reproduce in a homosexual relationship and therefore cannot fulfill 1-5 -- not even an exception to the rule (unlike a particular woman being stronger than a particular man).


What other premises should I consider?

Am I the only one required to defend things here and show comprehensiveness?

On empirical data on children without a mom dad, it is ubiquitous. Do a google search.

Did you have a mom and dad? Did they teach you different things. I think this point is pretty self-evident.

[Brock Beauchamp]

On empirical data on children without a mom dad, it is ubiquitous. Do a google search.

That's hardly applicable to this situation. Single parents have a harder time raising children. There is no empirical evidence that gay couples have a harder time raising children, at least none that I am aware of.

[TheLeviathan]

Heterosexuals can meet all of 1-5 in principle (I think you are still not understanding this term), homosexuals cannot.

But they only meet that "principle" because you have so defined it. We come back to you hiding behind a definition to justify your definition. It's why I've skipped to the premises.

You can't say marriage is only for heterosexuals and then nit-pick hetero-sexual specific qualities to inform you definition and say it's air-tight. That's convenient and disingenuous. As an example to the contrary, I have a very broad definition and it opens up the possibility of many kinds of marriages I'm not nearly as comfortable with. It's the price of not being convenient. Your conditions are so narrowly selected as to present the illusion that your conclusion is necessarily valid. It's not.

I've defended my premises. My premises are very simple and pretty easily defended. Let's recap a few things you've thrown at the wall here and are abandoning:

1. Marriage laws enforce care of progeny -utterly and completely false.
2. Marriage (in principle) has been the same since before recorded time (if it's the same definition you just gave, I'd hope even you'd admit how ridiculous that claim was)

Are you really contending that your principled definition1-5 has existed throughout all recorded time as you claimed earlier?

On empirical data on children without a mom dad, it is ubiquitous. Do a google search.

I know that lacking one parent can hurt a child. But court cases have been wrangling with the two hetero vs. two homo parents for a decade. The studies are not in agreement and certainly show no consensus. Single parent studies are pretty irrelevant to this.

As for your last point. I'm not sure if two women couldn't have taught me the same things, I haven't had that experience. Nor, historically has anyone else. To call it inferior presupposes the experience sufficient enough to prove that. I don't believe enough experiences exist to even form an opinion one way or the other. You claimed there was empirical fact to this point. I'm just asking you to put your money where your mouth is.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Let me try an example to clear up this confusion. Men are in principle stronger than women. This means that the nature of a man is such that his physiology operates and is constructed to be physically stronger, with bigger muscle mass and testosterone. Women are, by nature (in principle), physically weaker. Of course, though, there are many women who are in fact stronger than men. This is an exception (or accident) to the rule (or essence/principle nature) of the strength of men and women.

Again, this is where it all falls apart. Based on this reasoning, we should create laws that dictate only men can be construction workers. After all, there was precedent for thousands of years. Men worked construction, women did not. Men, in principle, are stronger than women and the "average" man is more capable of doing the job, despite there being women out there stronger than that man.

Can you not see why laws should not be based on this line of reasoning?

[drjim]

1. In order for a culture survive and thrive, it must foster (A) - the boding between men and women.
2. A - the birth and rearing of children
3. A - the bonding between men and children
4. A - a healthy masculine identity
5. A - the transformation of adolescents into sexually responsible adults.
6. The institution of (traditional) marriage is the only kind of relationship that can promote all 1-5.
7. Therefore, society has an interest in promoting, encouraging and incentivizing male and female to not only procreate, but to marry and remain married to promote all 1-5, which are necessary to a culture's survival and well-being.
8. Therefore, society has an interest in encouraging (traditional) marriage.
9. Homosexual relationships cannot accomplish some or all of 1-5 (dare I say in principle -- will this be understood yet?).
10. Therefore, society has no compelling interest to promote, encourage and incentivize homosexual unions.

There's an argument in standard form. Granted, it does utilize necessary and sufficient conditions.

I take 1-5 from Paul Nathanson, a Canadian sociologist, scholar and homosexual, who concludes from his own research that people are "wrong in assuming that any society can do without [traditional] marriage... and same sex marriage is a bad idea, while gay relationships are not a bad idea." I agree. I don't care what kind of sex you like.

If nothing else, this is instructive as to why marriage should not be re/undefined. The relationships of homosexuals and heterosexuals are distinctly different. Therefore, the same word "marriage" does not fittingly apply to both circumstances, purposes and outcomes. Therefore, a different word should be used even in the case that society wants to disregard the substantial merits of the argument (that society has an interest in promoting traditional marriage and not homosexual unions) -- but says, whatever, it's about fairness. It's a distinction with a difference, deserving its own word.

There is no appeal to religion, ickiness, nor arbitrary definition (1-5) in the forgoing, so can we please stop with the red herrings, staw men and ad hominem... of course not, that's why it such a joy to post here.

Furthermore, you might agree with the argument above but say so what, marriage is good, and while society has no interest in encouraging and supporting homosexual unions, adopted kids by homosexuals in a committed marriage-like relationship can fulfill 1-5 pretty well. I wound't disagree that some can, but in principle (there I go again), and principle is what we base laws on, children with two moms or two dads obviously are deprived of a mother or father, necessarily. Proponents of Homosexual "marriage" must then claim that neither a mother or father is essential to the raising of children. Both claims are implicit, if not explicit: 1) Fathers are not particularly essential or important to children, as a father has nothing unique to offer a child which that child could not receive from a second female parent, and 2) Mothers are not particularly essential or important to children, as a mother has nothing unique to offer a child which that child could not receive from a second father.

Both messages are unhealthy, and empirically false.

Even if I grant that all of this is true, why would we as a society allow heterosexual marriages, complete with all benefits mentioned throughout, when one (or both) of the individuals are sterile or otherwise unable to produce children? How would those marriages be any different than a homosexual marriage?

I am quite sympathetic to many of the arguments you make here, particularly points 1-5. Luckily homosexual marriage does nothing to render these invalid.

I am also quite sympathetic to the preference of a child being raised by a father and mother. Unfortunately the reality of our society today does not allow that to always be the case. This was true before homosexual marriage or adoption were allowed.

[biggentleben]

Male-female defined every definition of marriage throughout secular history.


Debate of these issues took place during the time of Christ. Not exactly treading new moral ground here.

Marriage was not the standard in many cultures of what constituted a long-term relationship. That's where defining marriage is questionable.

Many debates took place, sure, but the stance of the church body on issues has drastically changed. To not see/admit this is simply ignoring facts.

[Ultima Ratio]

Again, this is where it all falls apart. Based on this reasoning, we should create laws that dictate only men can be construction workers. After all, there was precedent for thousands of years. Men worked construction, women did not. Men, in principle, are stronger than women and the "average" man is more capable of doing the job, despite there being women out there stronger than that man.

Can you not see why laws should not be based on this line of reasoning?

Why would this logically follow?

Can women do construction? Yes
Can men do construction? Yes

Can homosexuals have a child? No
Can heterosexuals have a child. Yes

But more to the REAL point of this bad analogy -- Does society have an interest in men being construction workers and not women -- No.