Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 1 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 166
  1. #1
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,937
    Post Thanks / Like

    Hypocrisy of Homosexual "Marriage" Argument at Supreme Court

    During oral arguments at the Supreme Court this week on homosexual "marriage", the attorney representing homosexual plaintiffs was asked why four adults of sound mind couldn't enter into a group marriage. This attorney had the unmitigated gall to respond that the state could step in and say that 1) such a union is not a marriage, and 2) such a union would be unhealthy for society. http://cnsnews.com/news/article/cnsn...ry-one-another
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  2. Likes Squatch347 liked this post
  3. #2
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,272
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Hypocrisy of Homosexual "Marriage" Argument at Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    During oral arguments at the Supreme Court this week on homosexual "marriage", the attorney representing homosexual plaintiffs was asked why four adults of sound mind couldn't enter into a group marriage. This attorney had the unmitigated gall to respond that the state could step in and say that 1) such a union is not a marriage, and 2) such a union would be unhealthy for society. http://cnsnews.com/news/article/cnsn...ry-one-another
    I looked at the link. I don't see where he said it would be unhealthy for society.

    And even if he did happen to say that, I don't see the hypocrisy. If one holds that gay marriage is not unhealthy for society and polygamy is unhealthy for society, it's not hypocrisy to be for one and against the other.

    But while we are on the topic, slippery slope arguments, at least when it comes to laws, are BS anyway. If one cannot find a legal justification for banning gay marriage, then we should allow it. If one cannot find a legal justification for banning polygamy, then we should allow it as well and therefore a concern that legalizing gay marriage will lead to legalizing polygamy is a non-issue as we would end up legalizing something that we should legalize. And if there is a valid legal justification for banning polygamy, then that legal justification is why legalizing gay marriage won't lead to legalizing polygamy. So either way, there's no good reason to legally ban gay marriage out of concern for it leading to legalizing polygamy.

  4. #3
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,937
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Hypocrisy of Homosexual "Marriage" Argument at Supreme Court

    Another link: http://www.ijreview.com/2015/04/3091...ningnewsletter

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I looked at the link. I don't see where he said it would be unhealthy for society.
    Here's the quote about unhealthy for society (my paraphrase) “The question is one of again, assuming it’s within the fundamental right, the question then becomes one of justification. And I assume that the States would come in and they would say that there are concerns about consent and coercion. If there’s a divorce from the second wife, does that mean the fourth wife has access to the child of the second wife? There are issues around who is it that makes the medical decisions, you know, in the time of crisis. I assume there’d be lots of family disruption issues, setting aside issues of coercion and consent and so on that just don’t apply here, when we’re talking about two consenting adults who want to make that mutual commitment for as long as they shall be. So that’s my answer on that.”

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And even if he did happen to say that, I don't see the hypocrisy. If one holds that gay marriage is not unhealthy for society and polygamy is unhealthy for society, it's not hypocrisy to be for one and against the other.
    You don't see hypocrisy in saying that any two people should be allowed to marry based on a fundamental right of marrying who they love, but not four? You don't see a contradiction in arguing that the definition of marriage must be changed to allow same-sex unions, but could be constrained to prevent unions of more than two people? Are you kidding me?
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  5. #4
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,272
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Hypocrisy of Homosexual "Marriage" Argument at Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    Here's the quote about unhealthy for society (my paraphrase) “The question is one of again, assuming it’s within the fundamental right, the question then becomes one of justification. And I assume that the States would come in and they would say that there are concerns about consent and coercion. If there’s a divorce from the second wife, does that mean the fourth wife has access to the child of the second wife? There are issues around who is it that makes the medical decisions, you know, in the time of crisis. I assume there’d be lots of family disruption issues, setting aside issues of coercion and consent and so on that just don’t apply here, when we’re talking about two consenting adults who want to make that mutual commitment for as long as they shall be. So that’s my answer on that.”
    Okay. But that's saying that the state has a legitimate reason for banning polygamy for a reason that does not apply to gay marriage.

    If the state has a legitimate reason for banning polygamy but no such reason for banning gay marriage, then his argument adequately addresses the "what about legalizing polygamy" argument while still being consistent regarding gay marriage.

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    You don't see hypocrisy in saying that two people should be allowed to marry based on a fundamental right, but not four? You don't see a contradiction in arguing that the definition of marriage must be changed to allow same-sex unions, but could be constrained to prevent unions of more than two people? Are you kidding me?
    Whether there is hypocrisy or contradiction in one's argument for legalizing one but not the other depends on the argument itself. I don't see any hypocrisy or contradiction in the argument that particular lawyer offered. He said there is a legal justification for the state banning polygamy that does not apply to gay marriage. Treating two different things differently is not hypocrisy.

  6. Likes Dionysus liked this post
  7. #5
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    138
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Hypocrisy of Homosexual "Marriage" Argument at Supreme Court

    Hipocrisy is not easy to define and we mostly use it to prove our point. Show me a consistent human being.
    I have been married to one wife for many years, some passionate, some turbulent, some tinged with hypocrisy.
    How about living up to this: ' But I say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.'
    Any takers?
    What goes on in human sexual relations is in truth a patchwork of variation, so lets be kind to another and try to overlook our faults.

  8. Likes Sigfried liked this post
  9. #6
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,937
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Hypocrisy of Homosexual "Marriage" Argument at Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by kaptonok View Post
    Hipocrisy is not easy to define and we mostly use it to prove our point. Show me a consistent human being.
    I have been married to one wife for many years, some passionate, some turbulent, some tinged with hypocrisy.
    How about living up to this: ' But I say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.'
    Any takers?
    What goes on in human sexual relations is in truth a patchwork of variation, so lets be kind to another and try to overlook our faults.
    Relevance to the arguments heard in the Supreme Court?
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  10. #7
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,429
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Hypocrisy of Homosexual "Marriage" Argument at Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    During oral arguments at the Supreme Court this week on homosexual "marriage", the attorney representing homosexual plaintiffs was asked why four adults of sound mind couldn't enter into a group marriage. This attorney had the unmitigated gall to respond that the state could step in and say that 1) such a union is not a marriage, and 2) such a union would be unhealthy for society. http://cnsnews.com/news/article/cnsn...ry-one-another
    I listened to the oral arguments on Tuesday and I didn't hear what you're describing exactly as you're describing it. The judge didn't ask why four people couldn't get married. He asked if there were any grounds for denying such people a license. She answered in the affirmative, because she assumed that the state would step in because polygamy introduces legal family complications that don't have to do with two consenting adults. That's why she gave examples over competing custodial rights and so on. She said nothing about it being unhealthy and so on.

    Here's the relevant transcript, for those who are interested:

    JUSTICE ALITO: Suppose we rule in your favor in this case and then after that, a group consisting of two men and two women apply for a marriage license. Would there be any ground for denying them a license?

    MS. BONAUTO: I believe so, Your Honor.

    JUSTICE ALITO: What would be the reason?

    MS. BONAUTO: There'd be two. One is whether the State would even say that that is such a thing as a marriage, but then beyond that, there are definitely going to be concerns about coercion and
    consent and disrupting family relationships when you start talking about multiple persons. But I want to also just go back to the latency question for a moment, if I may. Because...

    JUSTICE SCALIA: Well, I didn't understand your answer.

    JUSTICE ALITO: Yes. I hope you will come back to mine. If you want to go back to the earlier one

    MS. BONAUTO: No, no.

    JUSTICE ALITO: then you can come back to mine.

    MS. BONAUTO: Well, that's what I mean, that is I mean, the State...

    JUSTICE ALITO: Well, what if there's no... these are 4 people, 2 men and 2 women, it's not it's not the sort of polygamous relationship, polygamous marriages that existed in other societies and still exist in some societies today. And let's say they're all consenting adults, highly educated. They're all lawyers.

    (Laughter)

    JUSTICE ALITO: What would be the ground under under the logic of the decision you would like us to hand down in this case? What would be the logic of denying them the same right?

    MS. BONAUTO: Number one, I assume the States would rush in and say that when you're talking about multiple people joining into a relationship, that that is not the same thing that we've had in marriage, which is on the mutual support and consent of two people. Setting that aside, even assuming it is within the fundamental...

    JUSTICE ALITO: But well, I don't know what kind of a distinction that is because a marriage between two people of the same sex is not something that we have had before, recognizing that is a substantial break. Maybe it's a good one. So this is no... why is that a greater break?

    MS. BONAUTO: The question is one of again, assuming it's within the fundamental right, the question then becomes one of justification. And I assume that the States would come in and they would say that there are concerns about consent and coercion. If there's a divorce from the second wife, does that mean the fourth wife has access to the child of the second wife? There are issues around who is it that makes the medical decisions, you know, in the time of crisis. I assume there'd be lots of family disruption issues, setting aside issues of coercion and consent and so on that just don't apply here, when we're talking about two consenting adults who want to make that mutual commitment for as long as they shall be. So that's my answer on that.

  11. Thanks MindTrap028 thanked for this post
  12. #8
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,617
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Hypocrisy of Homosexual "Marriage" Argument at Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    During oral arguments at the Supreme Court this week on homosexual "marriage", the attorney representing homosexual plaintiffs was asked why four adults of sound mind couldn't enter into a group marriage. This attorney had the unmitigated gall to respond that the state could step in and say that 1) such a union is not a marriage, and 2) such a union would be unhealthy for society. http://cnsnews.com/news/article/cnsn...ry-one-another
    Yes, I agree. Polyamorous marriages should be legal.
    "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." --Voltaire

  13. #9
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,937
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Hypocrisy of Homosexual "Marriage" Argument at Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    She answered in the affirmative, because she assumed that the state would step in because polygamy introduces legal family complications that don't have to do with two consenting adults.
    She fabricated potential complications in an effort to persuade the justices that granting a right to homosexual "marriage" would not lead to poly-marriages.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  14. #10
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,429
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Hypocrisy of Homosexual "Marriage" Argument at Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    She fabricated potential complications...
    She fabricated potential complications? Do you mean that she told some sort of lie? How so? What I heard and read was a question from Alito that required speculation on her part, and she gave a speculative answer. And in any case, it still had nothing to do with gay marriage.

  15. #11
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,101
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Hypocrisy of Homosexual "Marriage" Argument at Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by dio
    She fabricated potential complications? Do you mean that she told some sort of lie? How so? What I heard and read was a question from Alito that required speculation on her part, and she gave a speculative answer. And in any case, it still had nothing to do with gay marriage.
    First, thanks for posting the actual exchange.

    As to the issue of fabricating complications, I don't think I would word it like that, but she certainly wasn't pointing to any kind of "new" issue. The idea of who gets the kids is an issue in any marriage. Any issue of control exists in all marriages and it wouldn't be a new problem for a 4 person marriage.

    The idea that consent and coercion would be a fundamental problem in a 4 person marriage seems to be totally made up(IE not drawn from any facts or foundation logic). I see no reason to think that it would be a greater concern than exists in all current marriages.

    --- lawyers aren't really smart---
    I think she may actually be responding to it in a very specific way. As though the judge said "can you think of any possible circumstance for the state to reject an application of a marriage licence" To which she could have said literally anything. Maybe they are brain dead, or in a comma. (or some other specific situation).
    Which wouldn't actually be answering the question. .. so I suspect that is what she was really angling at, because the general form of her answer undermined their petition. Like saying the state wouldn't recognize it as fulfilling the definition of marriage..
    Well hell, that is what I have been saying about this whole "gay unions" parading as marriage from the get go.


    ---Note on Supreme court---
    Once the courts allowed the state to argue an actually contradictory argument on Obama care, and ruled in it's favor, I have lost a bit of faith in the reasonableness of the process. In that case they argued it was a tax, and that it wasn't a tax at the same time and in the same sense, then it was allowed to stand. So these arguments are pretty irrelevant as for their logical powers.

    So hypocrisy, bad logic etc... who cares. You can still "win" the case with doing both at the same time. She could have come out and said "but they aren't gay so it doesn't count" and they can still win their case.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  16. Thanks Dionysus thanked for this post
  17. #12
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,429
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Hypocrisy of Homosexual "Marriage" Argument at Supreme Court

    Well, I guess we'll just have to disagree on whether or not four parents (or owners) might provide more conflict and complication over a child (or property) than would two parents (or owners). What's obvious to me isn't as obvious to you, and vice versa, of course.

    In any case, I think the strongest case the opposition had was for leaving it up to the states. If any arguments they presented had any actual substance, it was that one. All the rest were truly empty and meaningless. The argument to leave it at the state level was very interesting and compelling, IMO.

  18. Likes MindTrap028 liked this post
  19. #13
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,272
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Hypocrisy of Homosexual "Marriage" Argument at Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    The argument to leave it at the state level was very interesting and compelling, IMO.
    The argument for leaving it up to the states only works if one does not hold that there is a constitutional right to marriage for gays. If one holds that it is an issue of constitutional rights then any law barring gay marriage is unconstitutional and no governmental body at any level can have such a law.

    ----------------------------

    To address gay marriage in general, this is the way I see it.

    If we define marriage as two people having a commitment ceremony and then living together as family, then gay marriage is already legal. I'm quite certain there are no laws forbidding a same sex couple from having such a ceremony, living together as family, and referring to themselves as "married" and if such a laws does exist on the books, it is unenforceable. The government really has no say in whether people, gay or straight, do this or not.

    What the state(s) can do, and does, is officially recognize these unions as these unions and it has criteria on which unions shall be recognized and which ones shall not be recognized. And it seems clear that to refuse to recognize the unions of gay people, especially without a compelling reason, is to deny those unions equal protection of the law and therefore unconstitutional.

    --------------------

    As far as polygamy goes, the same principle applies. It's not any of the state's business if a man lives with more than one woman, has children with more than one woman at the same time, or has marriage ceremonies with more than one woman.

    But recognition is a different issue. As the state does provide benefits to the unions, it does seem that a man with multiple wives would have more benefits per person than a man with one wife. But whatever the complexities may be, there should be a way to work it out - such as decreasing benefits per spouse for each additional spouse.

    But either way the "what about polygamy" argument doesn't hold much weight. If there is a good reason to ban polygamy, then it will be banned despite how we treat gay marriage. If there is no good reason to ban polygamy, then gay marriage leading to the legalization of polygamy isn't an issue as there's nothing wrong with legalizing what we have no good reason to ban in the first place.

  20. #14
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,101
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Hypocrisy of Homosexual "Marriage" Argument at Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    Well, I guess we'll just have to disagree on whether or not four parents (or owners) might provide more conflict and complication over a child (or property) than would two parents (or owners). What's obvious to me isn't as obvious to you, and vice versa, of course.

    In any case, I think the strongest case the opposition had was for leaving it up to the states. If any arguments they presented had any actual substance, it was that one. All the rest were truly empty and meaningless. The argument to leave it at the state level was very interesting and compelling, IMO.
    I may have miscommunication a bit on that point. I certainly agree that there could be MORE property issues and who gets the children issues, or at least a more complex issue created by 4 person unions. I just don't think it is a valid category of objection for the state to base a denial.
    It's like saying, you can start a business with 2 people, but not 4, because that would just make the paperwork a nightmare for the state. The state exists to protect our rights, and the fact that it becomes difficult for the state is not a justification to deny the right to the people.

    For those arguing a right to marriage and legal protections, the number of people is not a valid objection.
    And again, I do agree totally that it would typically create more issues for the state to wade through, especially in the case of death and divorce.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    If we define marriage as two people having a commitment ceremony and then living together as family, then gay marriage is already legal.
    The fact is of course that, that is the proposed NEW definition of marriage. It is not the historical understanding of marriage in America.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  21. #15
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,272
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Hypocrisy of Homosexual "Marriage" Argument at Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The fact is of course that, that is the proposed NEW definition of marriage. It is not the historical understanding of marriage in America.
    So what?

    The fact remains that there are no laws preventing a gay couple from having a marriage ceremony and calling themselves "married" or for heterosexuals to likewise consider them "married" and currently the majority of US citizens have no problem calling gay married couples "married".

    And of course to oppose this because of prior definition is to engage in an appeal to tradition fallacy.

  22. #16
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,101
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Hypocrisy of Homosexual "Marriage" Argument at Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    So what?

    The fact remains that there are no laws preventing a gay couple from having a marriage ceremony and calling themselves "married" or for heterosexuals to likewise consider them "married" and currently the majority of US citizens have no problem calling gay married couples "married".

    And of course to oppose this because of prior definition is to engage in an appeal to tradition fallacy.
    SO, that is what she appealed to as a valid reason for the state to deny recognizing a marriage.. you know because it didn't fit the definition.

    " MS. BONAUTO: There'd be two. One is whether the State would even say that that is such a thing as a marriage, ....."

    Just because you are free to use words however you wish, doesn't mean society should be compelled to obey your whim.
    I don't accept the statement that the majority of U.S. citizens are o.k. with it.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  23. #17
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,429
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Hypocrisy of Homosexual "Marriage" Argument at Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    The argument for leaving it up to the states only works if one does not hold that there is a constitutional right to marriage for gays. If one holds that it is an issue of constitutional rights then any law barring gay marriage is unconstitutional and no governmental body at any level can have such a law.
    Yeah, I ultimately wound up in the same place. I'm just saying that, of the arguments the opposition presented, the argument for state's rights was the closest to having any teeth.

    ---------- Post added at 10:28 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:26 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    For those arguing a right to marriage and legal protections, the number of people is not a valid objection.
    I agree completely, then. I mean, proponents for gay marriage are asking if TWO people of the same sex can get married, period. So asking if allowing TWO people get married would allow for 3 or more people to get married is indeed not a valid objection.

    ---------- Post added at 10:49 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:28 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    SO, that is what she appealed to as a valid reason for the state to deny recognizing a marriage.. you know because it didn't fit the definition.
    Wait, I thought we were on the same page. She didn't appeal to anything. She was answering the question in the context in which it was asked, which was 1) out of context for the discussion and 2) speculative.

    Regarding context:

    The judge asked IF the Court allowed for TWO people - irrespective of gender - to get married, would there still be grounds to deny 4 people a marriage license. OF COURSE their would be. SCOTUS isn't deliberating allowing 3 or more people to get married. SCOTUS is deliberating 2 people - irrespective of gender - to be married. That's why she said "One is whether the State would even say that that is such a thing as a marriage". Of course they wouldn't. That's not what SCOTUS is deliberating. Polygamous marriage is something other than gay marriage, even though they're both conceptual types of marriages.

    Regarding speculation:

    The other part had to do with complications associated with multiple parents and issues of potential coercion and unclear custody, which would indeed exist in a much higher degree with multiple parents. But, because none of that has to do with whether two people can get married irrespective of gender, she had to speculate on reasons why the state might step in and deny polygamous persons a license to marry.

    Here's why it was a dumb question:

    Suppose we're "judges" in a world where a "team" consists of one white cat and one black cat. Suppose that someone comes along and says "We think that the color of the cat has nothing to do with whether or not two cats can be a team, so we’d like to make it so that any two cats can be a team irrespective of color".

    If you or I asked "Well, if we allow two cats of any color to be a team, would we have any grounds to deny 3 or 5 or 700 cats becoming a team?", that would be a stupid question. Why would it be a stupid question? Because we’re not talking about the number of cats it takes to make a team; we’re talking about whether color matters in the composition of the team. And whether we say it does or it doesn’t matter, that STILL doesn’t make it so that the number of cats in a team has any bearing on the color of those cats on the team.

  24. #18
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,101
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Hypocrisy of Homosexual "Marriage" Argument at Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    I agree completely, then. I mean, proponents for gay marriage are asking if TWO people of the same sex can get married, period. So asking if allowing TWO people get married would allow for 3 or more people to get married is indeed not a valid objection.
    Umm.. not quite what I was thinking.

    I was trying to say that the number of people may increase an issue, but that isn't really a justification for rejection of their petition to marry.
    At the heart proponents of gay marriage are asking to change the definition of marriage so as to have it apply to them. They point out that the sexual orientation is not essential to what a "marriage" should be considered.

    So they were faced with the question of other possible changes namely a change to the number of people involved.
    The reasons used to justify the change to include homosexuals is absolutely applicable to many other possible changes. The exclusion issues the proponents of gay marriage pointed to in regards to 4 person marriage, were not really relevant or valid factors.

    The line of questioning itself is valid, because if there is no line for what a marriage is, then it is a meaningless term, and as a legal term it must have some meaning placed on it. It's also why I'm a proponent of protecting the legal rights of gays to enter unions which provides equal protection to their interests as is available in the traditional marriage (IE give them their own legal term, or create a new legal term).
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  25. #19
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,429
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Hypocrisy of Homosexual "Marriage" Argument at Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The line of questioning itself is valid, because if there is no line for what a marriage is, then it is a meaningless term.
    Well, they're not arguing for obliterating the term. They're arguing for modifying it. Specifically, they're asking to remove the consideration of the gender of the people wanting to enter a marriage (which, again, is not the same as number of people wanting to enter a marriage). So yes, the question of the number is utterly irrelevant (I spoke to this above).

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    It's also why I'm a proponent of protecting the legal rights of gays to enter unions which provides equal protection to their interests as is available in the traditional marriage (IE give them their own legal term, or create a new legal term).
    I can see that. Religious people people in particular tend to be very protective of the term "marriage". Moreover, because people are so protective of the term, I can envision marriage as a primarily religious institution (not unlike baptism) that, in and of itself, confers absolutely no actual legal benefits.

    So if people want to go to a church and get married by a priest, then they should do so. But then getting married should not carry with it any legal benefits, nor should the priest be empowered by the state to confer those benefits by performing the ceremony. If a person wants the legal benefits provided by a state-recognized union, then they should be required to enter into a civil union by securing a permit from the state and having the union officiated by an employee of the state.

    Or we could just let two people get married without worrying about what they do in the bedroom.

  26. Likes MindTrap028 liked this post
  27. #20
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,845
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Hypocrisy of Homosexual "Marriage" Argument at Supreme Court

    Specifically, they're asking to remove the consideration of the gender of the people wanting to enter a marriage (which, again, is not the same as number of people wanting to enter a marriage).
    I'm at a loss for any justification of status quo -> legal same-sex marriage that doesn't also work for legal same-sex marriage -> legal polygamy.

    But then getting married should not carry with it any legal benefits
    This seems totally backward. The reason for having the legal apparatus of marriage is because people were entering into marriages with one another, and it seemed fitting for certain legal rights and statuses to attach by virtue of that relationship. Why have any legal benefits to marriage at all? Is it really just a reward for utilizing a justice of the peace and going through the government's red tape process? Or is it based on some sort of recognition of marriage as a practice among people?
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  28. Likes MindTrap028 liked this post
 

 
Page 1 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 10
    Last Post: July 7th, 2005, 02:04 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •