|
Replies: 50
| visibility 1
|
110%er [8083]
TigerPulse: 93%
Posts: 3566
Joined: 8/6/03
|
Is marriage a civil right or religious freedom?
Mar 29, 2013, 1:44 PM
|
|
|
|
.
|
|
|
|
 |
Rock Defender [54]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Neither.
Mar 29, 2013, 1:54 PM
|
|
It is a bad idea.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
why would marriage be a civil right?
Mar 29, 2013, 2:01 PM
|
|
It certainly isn't a religious freedom, so attacking that idea is a straw man. The worry about religious freedom has more to do with what will happen when orthodox Christians (and nearly every other religion) continue to say that homosexual couples are not the kinds of couples that can be called "married" when the society is choosing to affirm and encourage those relationships. If it's a civil rights issue, why would there be any exceptions for religious institutions?
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [8083]
TigerPulse: 93%
Posts: 3566
Joined: 8/6/03
|
Marriage is a contract between 2 people
Mar 29, 2013, 2:21 PM
|
|
The Orthodox Christians didn't come up with term "marriage" so why do they feel they should be able to define it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11016]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15160
Joined: 8/6/10
|
No, it is a religious institution, not exclusive to
Mar 29, 2013, 2:27 PM
|
|
Christianity. Marriage comes along with an implied civil contract but the two should be separate in a just society.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [8083]
TigerPulse: 93%
Posts: 3566
Joined: 8/6/03
|
Marriage is not a religious institution
Mar 29, 2013, 2:43 PM
|
|
Marriage is a legal union of two people.
Marriages can be performed in a secular civil ceremony or in a religious setting. It can also be bestowed upon a couple living together for a length of time
The wedding ceremony is often based on religious beliefs and practice, but marriage itself is a civil institution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11016]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15160
Joined: 8/6/10
|
That's not marriage, that is a government decree.***
Mar 29, 2013, 2:46 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
Re: Marriage is not a religious institution
Mar 29, 2013, 3:30 PM
[ in reply to Marriage is not a religious institution ] |
|
Civil marriage is the recognition of an already existing relationship, which we can call "marriage." It isn't only a religious institution, although religions often sanctify the relationships. The question I would ask you is, since you seem to think the state can decide marriage is whatever it wants it to be, why do all societies and religions recognize marriage if it's only about romantic love? Why would the state be interested in that? Why would religions be interested in it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [8142]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 19775
Joined: 6/6/03
|
State recognition of marriage is in fact, about stable...
Mar 29, 2013, 3:56 PM
|
|
... families, something it indeed has an interest in.
What you have failed to account for, or even acknowledge, is that allowing same sex couples to marry IN NO WAY undermines the pursuit of stable families. Quite to the contrary, it ENCOURAGES it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
Re: State recognition of marriage is in fact, about stable...
Mar 29, 2013, 4:02 PM
|
|
I don't see how codifying a definition of marriage as a relationship about emotional fulfillment, without any inherent connections to bodily union or procreation and family life, encourages stable family life. It might be the case that lots of people already think of marriage this way, but that kind of thinking about marriage- because it makes marital norms of permanence and exclusivity pretty much arbitrary- is what led us towards the family breakdown we have today. Just because we've done harm to marriage with things like no fault divorce doesn't mean we should continute down that road by completely severing the tie between marriage and procreation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [8142]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 19775
Joined: 6/6/03
|
I got news for you Cam, that train has left the station.
Mar 29, 2013, 4:08 PM
|
|
The vast majority of people everywhere already believe marriage is about the relationship between two people, and nothing else, and they also believe that's the way it should be.
So if that's what the right is basing their legal arguments on, they might want to rethink.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
if that's true...
Mar 29, 2013, 4:11 PM
|
|
then let's let the people decide. If your standard is whether the train is in the station or not, then we need to let people vote on it. Unfortunately for your argument, nearly all states that have taken a vote have voted to keep traditional marriage.
You really didn't need to post this, though, since I already acknowledged the point in the post you replied to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [8142]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 19775
Joined: 6/6/03
|
The votes have just started my friend.
Mar 29, 2013, 4:14 PM
|
|
Every word of your argument is based on the idea of marriage as primarily a vehicle for procreation, and if that is not the case, and it is not, you have no argument.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
for now, the facts are on my side
Mar 29, 2013, 5:28 PM
|
|
maybe one day you'll be right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [38514]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 47162
Joined: 10/28/02
|
No, the facts aren't on your side.
Mar 29, 2013, 5:52 PM
|
|
Yes, you present some facts but you put them together to suit your opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
that's actually what an argument is
Mar 30, 2013, 2:03 AM
|
|
Nobody else has really presented anything other than arguments based on emotion or on an abstract idea of equality that ignores the sexual difference that is our biological reality.
By the way, your post ignores the context of mine. Whatever you think "the facts" are, what we were talking about was whether most people think about marriage as a conjugal union or whether they think about it as romantic. The facts are that almost every time gay marriage has been brought up to the people, they have rejected it in favor of the conjugal/ traditional view of marriage. Those were the facts I was referring to, not just "the facts" in general.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [38514]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 47162
Joined: 10/28/02
|
Sure, but opinion is changing and changing quickly.
Mar 30, 2013, 10:07 AM
|
|
The fact that I say you have wrong is defining marriage as being only about procreation. Marriage is about so much more and that definition (while excluding all others) is offensive to most married heterosexuals who understand that marriage is many things.
I just want committed same sex relationships to have the same legal protections as straight relationships (the GOA has said there are more than 1100 legal benefits denied to same sex couples).
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [8083]
TigerPulse: 93%
Posts: 3566
Joined: 8/6/03
|
Poll shows that 53% of Americans support same-sex marriage
Mar 29, 2013, 6:15 PM
[ in reply to for now, the facts are on my side ] |
|
A March 20–24 2013 CBS News Poll shows that 53% of Americans support same-sex marriage, 39% oppose, and 8% are undecided[9]. The same poll also finds that 33% of Americans who now think same-sex couples should be allowed to legally marry say they once held the opposite view and have changed their opinion.
November 16–19 2012 CBS News poll found that 51% of Americans support same-sex marriage while 40% do not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
Re: Poll shows that 53% of Americans support same-sex marriage
Mar 30, 2013, 2:05 AM
|
|
Sure. So if you're confident that the American people support gay marriage, why wouldn't you, as a political strategy, want to put the question into their hands? Why is the gay lobby pushing things into the courts? And why is it that, until it was brought up in deep blue states like Maryland and Washington, gay marriage has never been approved by the people?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [38514]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 47162
Joined: 10/28/02
|
I agree about the vote, and we'll see it in a majority
Mar 29, 2013, 4:46 PM
[ in reply to if that's true... ] |
|
of states before too long. Attitudes are changing and we've already seen this begin in the last election. The attitudes that existed when DOMA was passed are largely gone. People, as a majority, no longer fear the gay "lifestyle" or the gay "agenda" as they've realizing that there is not either. Gays are no different than the rest of society, except they are attracted to the same sex.
But you also are fully aware that we don't live in a majority rules society either. We have means in place to protect the rights of the minority as well.
But attitudes are changing much quicker than I think you realize.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
maybe, but that is all conjecture***
Mar 29, 2013, 5:25 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [38514]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 47162
Joined: 10/28/02
|
Seems like it's more than conjecture.
Mar 29, 2013, 5:55 PM
|
|
It's a documented trend.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
yes, it is a trend
Mar 30, 2013, 2:07 AM
[ in reply to I agree about the vote, and we'll see it in a majority ] |
|
but the conjecture is that the trend will continue in perpetuity. Passage of ERA was, at one time, inevitable, and so was slavery in some parts of the country. A "documented trend" doesn't really tell us anything about the future, and it especially doesn't tell us anything about how the issue of marriage will play out in the American political landscape.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [38514]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 47162
Joined: 10/28/02
|
As for affirmation, I think the confusion and influences
Mar 29, 2013, 2:44 PM
[ in reply to why would marriage be a civil right? ] |
|
on opinion on this matter is the assumption that through respecting and affirming homosexual relationships that you're also affirming all homosexual sexual behavior (or deviant heterosexual behavior). That is absolutely not the case. Morality and right and wrong all still apply. It's about encouraging stable committed relationships, which benefits society. I'll never affirm such behavior whether it be gay or straight. Morality is not confined by orientation, nor should it be. Even if one believes that homosexuality is wrong, wouldn't society prefer stable committed relationships?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
Re: As for affirmation, I think the confusion and influences
Mar 29, 2013, 3:35 PM
|
|
I'm not sure that just encouraging any stable relationship is the responsibility of the state, nor do I think there's a very good reason for the state to encourage stable romantic relationships. If there were good reasons to do so, why stop at sexual relationships? Why stop with romance? Why not friendships? Why not two brothers who want to help raise one of their kids? Why not certain business partnerships? This isn't to say that you would see people applying for marriage licenses in these situations, but that to deny them a marriage license would be arbitrary discrimination. This is basically what Justice Sotomayor said when questioning Tedd Olson. So I actually think same sex marriage introduces much more arbitrary discrimination than traditional marriage does.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18026]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30159
Joined: 9/9/06
|
Promoting traditional marriage opens that slippery slope...
Mar 29, 2013, 3:45 PM
|
|
so you would have to then argue for the state to get out of promoting marriage altogether
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
no...
Mar 29, 2013, 3:51 PM
|
|
it's recognition of same sex couples as married that gets us rolling down the slope. Sure, any recognition of marriage puts us on a slope, but at least traditional marriage offers a non- arbitrary reason for why it has only recognized one man and one woman as married. I honestly have no idea why we couldn't call all kinds of couples and groups married under the love standard.
Remember, every law makes substantial distinctions, or "discriminations"- if you like. Equality before the law means only that we can't make arbitrary distinctions. And recognition of same sex couples as married would introduce just such an arbitrary distinction into the law. To quote Ryan Anderson, "redefining marriage would put a new principle into law — that marriage is whatever emotional bond the government says it is. No principled reason could be offered for why an emotional union should be permanent. Or limited to two persons. Or exclusive."
Message was edited by: camcgee®
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18026]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30159
Joined: 9/9/06
|
I don't see the "arbitrary" with same-sex marriage...
Mar 29, 2013, 4:04 PM
|
|
They can be in love same as traditional. They can have families same as traditional. They can raise a child to be a productive member of society same as traditional. Where is the arbitrary?
The slope starts by the state getting involved in marriage in the first place. Once it did that, once it wrote the law sanctioning what marriage is, it opened the door for all the examples you gave.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
Re: I don't see the "arbitrary" with same-sex marriage...
Mar 29, 2013, 4:09 PM
|
|
No, they can't have families in the same way as traditional marriage produces families. Sure they can be in love and raise a child, but their sex isn't a sexual union that is inherently procreative. That's a very obvious and incontrovertible distinction, and it's an important one because it means that gay sex is much more private than straight sex. I really don't understand why the state would be interested in getting involved with same sex couples at all, except maybe to fix a few things like hospital visitation and the like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18026]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30159
Joined: 9/9/06
|
Now, THAT sounds like an arbitrary distinction.
Mar 29, 2013, 4:18 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [38514]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 47162
Joined: 10/28/02
|
Exactly.
Mar 29, 2013, 4:25 PM
|
|
He claims to be applying logic, but his logic is based on and around his opinion.
Of course, it's what we all do. Most of us are just willing to admit it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
wait...
Mar 29, 2013, 5:27 PM
|
|
how is it "just an opinion" that straight sex is substantially different from gay sex in that it is oriented towards procreation while gay sex cannot be? That's just my opinion now? Is sexual difference arbitrary and just my opinion also?
I'm kind of amazed to hear these facile statements that boil down to the idea that sexual difference has nothing to do with marriage, as if that was the same thing as saying race has anything to do with marriage.
Message was edited by: camcgee®
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [38514]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 47162
Joined: 10/28/02
|
It's your opinion that this difference is the only thing
Mar 29, 2013, 6:03 PM
|
|
that defines marriage. Or whatever you happen to be arguing at the moment.
I could use civil union instead of marriage, if that helps you. Yes, sexual orientation has nothing to do with romantic relationships which is the basis of marriage (as is stated in the traditional wedding vows).
Checkmate!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [38514]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 47162
Joined: 10/28/02
|
And this is the point where you say it's assumed or implied.
Mar 29, 2013, 6:05 PM
|
|
King me!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
Re: And this is the point where you say it's assumed or implied.
Mar 30, 2013, 2:19 AM
|
|
Or, it's where I have to post something really long with citations to court cases and other arguments saying essentially the same thing I'm saying, but which people won't read and which will get attacked for posting something long and complex. Heck, nearly everything I've said has been broached and argued for and against by the Supremes this week. All these things you think are "just my opinion" are somehow also recognized as important for the law to the highest court in the land. I wonder how my opinion became so important.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
so you've obviously ignored the legal opinions I've cited
Mar 30, 2013, 2:16 AM
[ in reply to It's your opinion that this difference is the only thing ] |
|
or the other research I've cited. Or maybe you just didn't see it. What is unfortunate about tigernet is that, if I post something very long that covers all the bases and has citations, people won't read it and I'll just end up with a bunch of snarky posts about how long whatever I've written is. If I post short stuff, like I did here, people parse the argument and I end up having to repeat things over and over again.
Apart from the reseach I've cited, I've backed up what I've claimed is the reason why the state has an interest in recognizing marriage through argumentation. You don't have to accept that, but an argument isn't simply a stated opinion. On the other hand, most of what I've gotten in response on here are personal attacks, silliness that suggests I'm saying things that I am pretty explicitly not saying, or some objection that I've already addressed. For instance, you keep referring to this irrelevance about whatever people's wedding vows might be. I have no idea why the state would care what people say in their wedding vows, and the state apparently (and thankfully) never has stepped in to regulate what people say in their wedding vows. But what's more important is why the state has any interest in recognizing, and thus encouraging, certain relationships. I've given you arguments that you apparently don't agree with, but all I get back from you is an assertion that it's "just my opinion," and something about whatever it is people say in their wedding vows.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [38514]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 47162
Joined: 10/28/02
|
Legal opinions change as do attitudes...
Mar 30, 2013, 10:24 AM
|
|
and again, I agree that issues like this need to be voted on by the people anyhow so I'm not as concerned about the courts. If you look at the trends public opinion is changing quickly, so I'm OK with that.
As for your research much of what you post is valid on individual points, it just doesn't add together for me as it does for you.
What I'm saying is despite all of the "facts" that you post, your arguments are still based on your opinion as to how you put these arguments together.
And while you claim that the other side is trying to redefine marriage, that is exactly what you are doing in your arguments by discarding every aspect of marriage except the one that suits you.
The simplest way for me to look at what marriage is is to define it through the vows, when looking at what any agreement is you look at the contract. And the vows define it as what you say it is not and don't mention what you say it is. The simplest argument is always the best.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [8083]
TigerPulse: 93%
Posts: 3566
Joined: 8/6/03
|
Neither can all traditional marriages
Mar 29, 2013, 6:05 PM
[ in reply to Re: I don't see the "arbitrary" with same-sex marriage... ] |
|
"they can't have families in the same way as traditional marriage produces families"
There are many traditional marriages that seek out help in having children.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
this is why I end up writing long posts...
Mar 30, 2013, 1:58 AM
|
|
because the same objections get brought up over and over if I don't cover everything. As I've said ad infinitum, it only matters that heterosexual couples are of a class that can procreat, not that every single one of them is capable or willing. This is because the vast majority of heterosexual sex is capable of procreation, and because the will and certain biological deficiencies where it comes to fertility aren't certain indicators of someone never being able to bear a child.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [38514]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 47162
Joined: 10/28/02
|
Or maybe it means that your argument isn't as sound
Mar 30, 2013, 10:27 AM
|
|
as you think it is?
This is all I'll post on this subject from now on:
I, (name), take you (name), to be my (wife/husband), to have and to hold from this day forward, for better or for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish; from this day forward until death do us part.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18026]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30159
Joined: 9/9/06
|
Haven't you said that marriage is a natural pairing?
Mar 29, 2013, 3:33 PM
[ in reply to why would marriage be a civil right? ] |
|
If so, then it would fall under a civil right for same-sex couples to have the same rights. They also don't get the same benefits under the law as heterosexual marriage.
I don't think a religious involvement has anything to do with whether something is a civil right or not. (Religious freedom is a civil right as well, which is probably where the confusion comes in)
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
Re: Haven't you said that marriage is a natural pairing?
Mar 29, 2013, 3:45 PM
|
|
I don't follow you. I said that marriage is an accounting for our sexually complementary natures. Since the relationship between two people of the same sex cannot be fundamentally oriented towards procreation (which isn't the same thing as saying a heterosexual relationship must be capable of procreation, or that procreation is the only point of marriage), the relationship is substantially different. That's why traditional marriage doesn't violate the equal protection clause, especially when considered under rational basis review, or probably even under intermediate scrutiny. Because marriage deals with people whose sex can be procreative as a class, and not based on their individual ability or willingness to procreate, it would be more difficult to argue the case under strict scrutiny, but I still think traditional marriage should be found constitutional even in that case.
As for the problem of same sex couples not getting appropriate "benefits," see here: http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2013/3/we-dont-need-to-redefine-marriage-to-fix-policy-problems. It isn't really necessary to change marriage to fix those problems.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18026]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30159
Joined: 9/9/06
|
There are other rights other than the "death" tax...
Mar 29, 2013, 3:55 PM
|
|
that isn't shared and might not be as easily fixed without the state redefining marriage. (I find it funny that the heritage only considers the tax issue as it's the easiest for them to get on board with anyways.)
Also from that piece: "Government recognizes marriage because it is a natural institution that serves the public good."
Under that banner, same-sex marriage should be allowed. It's both natural and serves the public good.
When you say that "procreation (isn't) is the only point of marriage" then you destroy your main point in this argument. You are acknowledging that what a marriage is may include procreation or it may not. Which is basically saying, marriage isn't (just) accounting for our sexually complementary natures.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
Re: There are other rights other than the "death" tax...
Mar 29, 2013, 5:37 PM
|
|
Well, you've got my argument a bit wrong. When I say that procreation isn't the only point of marriage, that isn't to say that the other reasons to get married are the reason why the state recognizes marriage. But procreation is intrinsic to marriage, such that if you were to remove the procreative aspect you wouldn't be talking about a marriage anymore and the state would no longer have any reason to recognize your new model of "marriage."
And the link wasn't addressing all of the "problems," just one in particular.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11016]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15160
Joined: 8/6/10
|
There is no such things as civil rights.***
Mar 29, 2013, 2:26 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
so what's a citizen then?
Mar 29, 2013, 3:57 PM
|
|
If there's no ius civis, surely there's no point to being a civis at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11016]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15160
Joined: 8/6/10
|
a slave***
Mar 30, 2013, 9:24 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
Except that isn't what I've been saying
Mar 30, 2013, 12:30 PM
|
|
I'm saying procreation is intrinsic to marriage, and that the state has an interest in marriage for that reason. That doesn't mean there aren't other reasons to marry, but someone needs to make the case why the government has any interest in promoting those aspects of marriage once the procreative aspect has been removed.
Let's also remember that what is being discussed in the Court is not whether supporters of traditional marriage have the right to impose their view of marriage on the rest of the country, but whether the people of a state have the right to determine that sexual difference has something to do with marriage. A broad ruling on Hollingsworth would create a right to same sex marriage no matter what the people in a state think. But at the same time, without making an argument for why the state should only recognize their romantic relationships and not others (and why the state should care ab romantic relationships at all), supporters of same sex marriage make marriage law more arbitrary and discriminatory. My guess us that the end result of the recognition of same sex relationships as marriages will be the abolition of marriage from the law.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18026]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30159
Joined: 9/9/06
|
Ok...
Mar 30, 2013, 3:15 PM
|
|
1.)I'm saying procreation is intrinsic to marriage, and that the state has an interest in marriage for that reason.
Let's say this is true. How does this preclude same-sex marriage? Procreation is a result of a sperm meeting an egg, not of a marriage. There are different means outside of intercourse in which a "sperm can meet the egg." Going by that idea, limiting marriage to the definition you have set fort is too narrow as a same-sex couple CAN procreate just not in the narrow way you have put forth.
Which means...
2.someone needs to make the case why the government has any interest in promoting those aspects of marriage once the procreative aspect has been removed.
Is no longer a valid argument because "the procreative aspect" as stated is too narrow a definition. The government has interest in promoting the parent/child relationship (and to a broader degree the "family" which is a broad concept and can include blood relatives or neighbors/community) as that relationship has a civil good. Same-Sex marriages allows for this to exist whereas, other "slippery slope" relationship examples do not. (This is part of the argument against the slippery slope.)
3.) Is "romantic relationships" what is being argued by same-sex advocates? If so, they shouldn't use that language. It's incorrect and limiting to the full breadth of their relationships.
4.) Would same-sex marriage lead to "abolition of marriage" more than no fault divorce?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Letterman [282]
TigerPulse: 81%
Posts: 152
Joined: 5/3/05
|
Marriage is about property rights, always has been
Mar 31, 2013, 9:34 AM
|
|
It's economics, like pretty much everything else in contractual life
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 50
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
