Blog on Same-Sex "Marriage," Atheism, and More

[Sovereign Dream]

This is a non-issue. There's nothing stopping two friends of the opposite sex from getting married under the system you're advocating.

Right, but the state wouldn't allow them to marry on the basis that they are friends; it would allow them to marry because they can form the type of union that is essentially ordered towards procreation.

Heck - in many states, there's often nothing stopping one friend from adopting another. In some, you can even adopt someone who's older than you. Why do you think that there isn't an epidemic of adults adopting each other?

Utterly irrelevant.

That's just false. Individual citizens are part of the public. Even if a government measure does nothing more than making a few people a bit happier, then this itself is a public purpose.

This is just nonsense:

P1.) Individual citizens are part of the public.

P2.) Even if a government measure does nothing more than making a few people a bit happier...

C: Then this is itself a public purpose.

Also, in many countries that have foundational laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender, restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples is illegal. Simply making sure that lower law doesn't violate higher law is a pretty important public purpose all by itself.

Again this is just a series of more non-sequiturs. I can hardly make sense of this. Do organize your thoughts so that I may interact with them.

It's almost a tautology that when two people have inexorably linked their lives together, they ought to be treated as if they've inexorably linked their lives together.

Again, this is just irrelevant and hardly something I can interact with. I don't have a clue what it is you're trying to say here.

Yeah... I don't support the abolition of marriage.

But you should if you think that marriage merely exists to recognize loving commitments as this recognizing loving commitments is of interest neither to state nor the public good.

Same-sex couples have children, too.

I'm trying to make sense of this. Surely you don't mean that same-sex couples literally procreated and have a child for this is impossible. So what you must mean is that, however it happens, some children have found themselves in the care of a same-sex couple. But then what is the point of noting that? I am (conditionally) opposed to same-sex adoption and am unconditionally opposed to surrogacy (or IVF).

Why do you want to have two legal tiers of family?

Again, what do you mean?

And please don't bring out that "single parent" red herring again. The law can't make a missing parent materialize. It can recognize the role a parent is having in the life of a child.

But the law can and should promote the ideal, viz. attaching children to their mother and father instead of detaching them.

Stop with the straw man. Not all loving relationships involve the linking of two lives to the extent that marriage does. Not all people in loving relationships would want marriage.

Point is, Penguin, that there is no non-arbitrary way to distinguish between which lovingly committed individuals to grant marriage to given your starting assumptions!

I find it hard to comprehend false, illogical arguments, so you may have to repeat it a few more times. :sarcastic

You are saying that the right to marry a woman should be allowed to men but denied to women. You are saying that the right to marry a man should be allowed to women but denied to men. On its face, this is discrimination on the basis of gender. Own up to your discriminatory position and defend it; don't pretend it's something it's not.

Lol this is just pathetic. You really cannot make this stuff up. Again ad nauseam: if marriage exists to attach mothers and fathers to their children and to one another, it makes absolutely no sense to declare that disallowing two men or two women to "marry" one another is discrimination. This is just utterly desperate.

 

[Father Heathen]

Yes, because I'm "in favor" of the rape of children by male priests.

You still see them as a moral authority and representatives of god. That's a seal of approval.

I'd figure that, you know, given your support of institutionally subsidizing sodomy that you'd be more into that kind of thing.

There is a very huge and obvious difference between something that happens between consenting adults, and something that violates and victimizes children.

 

[Sovereign Dream]

The legal rights of marriage matter most when we're at our most vulnerable. In the world you're arguing for, if a person is incapacitated in hospital and didn't arrange for power of attorney ahead of time, it's better for his or her partner and their kids to be evicted than it is to grant them access to the money in the partner's account to pay the rent or mortgage.


So you're not against giving same-sex couples the rights of marriage; you just want them to pay lots of lawyer's fees first?

Yeah, good one, you got me /sarcasm.

Anyhow, you didn't answer my question. Please tell me how a same-sex couple could go to a lawyer to attain the two specific rights I mentioned:

- the ability to sponsor one's same-sex partner for immigration
- job-protected leave to care for a critically ill same-sex partner

Okay, encore: (I) as far as I know, there are legal recourses that are available for them to be able to do so (II) why assume that they should be afforded those benefits in the first place? That's just more question-begging, but, then again, that seems to be everyone's signature move around here.

I'll take that your way of saying that you don't have a relevant response. I'm glad you concede the point.


Don't. Please. If you choked to death, I would be heartbroken.

Ha, I was actually thinking drinking the hemlock.

 

[Sovereign Dream]

Sure it is. Gay marriage has nothing to do with "separating children from their parents". That is completely obvious. It doesn't need defending any more than saying the sky is blue.

Right, but the cries for ssm are only equaled by the "rights" for ss partners to "parent." And, of course, implementing ssm will inevitably change parenting law. But that just isn't obvious enough, I suppose.

 

[Sovereign Dream]

Given that there is no rational, real-world justification for banning same-sex marriage, why else would you want to if not scripture?

Begging the question - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How would allowing homosexuals to marry impose anything on anyone? Are you suggesting that heterosexuals would be forced into arranged marriages with people of the same sex or something?

GotMeGood.gif

 

[fantome profane]

On my view, everyone can marry someone of the opposite sex. There's nothing discriminatory about that.

Absolutely, on my view everyone can marry someone of the same race. There's nothing discriminatory about that. Everyone has the same right, the right to marry someone who is the same race as they are. Very simple.

Or I guess just saying there is nothing discriminatory doesn't make it so.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

SD, do you take bisexual parents into account too?

BTW, I had a difficult time with your blog as well. Not so much the content itself (I've heard these arguments before), but the paragraphs are long. I suggest making your points more succinct. It seems you are able to do that here at RF, though the abrasiveness does tend to put people on the defensive.

 

[Alceste]

Right, but the cries for ssm are only equaled by the "rights" for ss partners to "parent." And, of course, implementing ssm will inevitably change parenting law. But that just isn't obvious enough, I suppose.

Dude, the scare quotes. Calm down before your fingers waggle right off your hands.

It's not obvious because it's bollox you've made up out of nothing. Gay couples in my country have had exactly the same rights as straight couples in my country for almost a decade and parenting is exactly the same as it ever was. Nothing has changed in my country for anyone except gay couples - and their lives have changed for the better.

 

[Alceste]

SD, do you take bisexual parents into account too?

BTW, I had a difficult time with your blog as well. Not so much the content itself (I've heard these arguments before), but the paragraphs are long. I suggest making your points more succinct. It seems you are able to do that here at RF, though the abrasiveness does tend to put people on the defensive.

Not me. The abrasiveness gives me a great opportunity to be abrasive myself. I love a project like this. I have always found that those who are most prone to trolling others tend to have the thinnest skin when the shoe is on the other foot. What's the saying? If you can't take it, don't dish it out?

 

[averageJOE]

If no one has said it I will. SD, your blog is utterly terrible.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Right, but the state wouldn't allow them to marry on the basis that they are friends; it would allow them to marry because they can form the type of union that is essentially ordered towards procreation.

Please show me the section of any marriage law of any country that would forbid two opposite-sex friends from marrying.

Utterly irrelevant.

No, it's relevant... just inconvenient to your argument.

This is just nonsense:

P1.) Individual citizens are part of the public.

P2.) Even if a government measure does nothing more than making a few people a bit happier...

C: Then this is itself a public purpose.

What's nonsense about it? Which part do you disagree with:

- "the public" is made up of individuals
- being happier is a benefit

Again this is just a series of more non-sequiturs. I can hardly make sense of this. Do organize your thoughts so that I may interact with them.

It's not a non sequitir. In fact, it's what made same-sex marriage legal here in Canada: the Supreme Court recognized that only allowing opposite-sex couples to marry violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Do you not agree that there's public benefit in making sure that laws are constitutional?

Again, this is just irrelevant and hardly something I can interact with. I don't have a clue what it is you're trying to say here.

Think hard. I'm sure you'll figure it out eventually.

But you should if you think that marriage merely exists to recognize loving commitments as this recognizing loving commitments is of interest neither to state nor the public good.

Argument from ignorance. The mere fact that you can't see a state interest or public good in same-sex marriage doesn't mean that none exists.

I'm trying to make sense of this. Surely you don't mean that same-sex couples literally procreated and have a child for this is impossible. So what you must mean is that, however it happens, some children have found themselves in the care of a same-sex couple. But then what is the point of noting that? I am (conditionally) opposed to same-sex adoption and am unconditionally opposed to surrogacy (or IVF).

Irrelevant. You can't snap your fingers and make same-sex-parented children go away. In the same-sex marriage debate, there are only two choices:

- children of same-sex couples get the benefits of having married parents
- children of same-sex couples don't get the benefits of having married parents

Arguing against same-sex marriage is equivalent to arguing for unmarried parents of same-sex-parented kids. If you don't support this outcome, then stop arguing for a course of action that would make it happen.

Again, what do you mean?

What you're arguing for would create a system where the children of same-sex-parented families get fewer benefits and protections than the children of opposite-sex-parented families. This is the case whether you approve of same-sex couples raising kids or not.

But the law can and should promote the ideal, viz. attaching children to their mother and father instead of detaching them.

You've repeated lines like this several times. What on earth are you talking about? What do you mean by "detaching"?

Point is, Penguin, that there is no non-arbitrary way to distinguish between which lovingly committed individuals to grant marriage to given your starting assumptions!

Sure there is. It's the same way we distinguish between lovingly committed individuals of opposite sexes: by whether they seek marriage.

Lol this is just pathetic. You really cannot make this stuff up. Again ad nauseam: if marriage exists to attach mothers and fathers to their children and to one another, it makes absolutely no sense to declare that disallowing two men or two women to "marry" one another is discrimination. This is just utterly desperate.

Fine. You don't want to be honest and forthright about your position? No skin off my nose.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Not me. The abrasiveness gives me a great opportunity to be abrasive myself. I love a project like this. I have always found that those who are most prone to trolling others tend to have the thinnest skin when the shoe is on the other foot. What's the saying? If you can't take it, don't dish it out?

Granted, yes.

Bear with me. The Super Bowl is boring this year.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yeah, good one, you got me /sarcasm.

Do you have a real response to my point?

Okay, encore: (I) as far as I know, there are legal recourses that are available for them to be able to do so

Then tell me what they are.

(Note: this may take you a while, since they don't exist)

(II) why assume that they should be afforded those benefits in the first place? That's just more question-begging, but, then again, that seems to be everyone's signature move around here.

Don't move the goalposts. Right now, we're addressing your claim that same-sex couples can attain the rights of marriage. Let's deal with that before changing the subject.

 

[Sovereign Dream]

Absolutely, on my view everyone can marry someone of the same race. There's nothing discriminatory about that. Everyone has the same right, the right to marry someone who is the same race as they are. Very simple.

Or I guess just saying there is nothing discriminatory doesn't make it so.

I wish I could say that I was expecting the anti-miscegenation laws comment with eagerness. Anywho, the reason why the anti-miscegenation laws were unjust was precisely because of the public purpose of marriage, namely, to attach mothers and fathers to their children and to one another. Allow me to explain: it won't work to compare ssm to interracial marriage, for the analogy falsely assumes that there is no relevant difference between race and gender. While race is irrelevant to the formation of a comprehensive union, gender certainly isn’t. Anti-miscegenation laws were deemed unjust precisely because they attempted to impose an arbitrary condition (i.e., race) that was irrelevant to the public purpose of marriage. Indeed, such statutes only made sense if one presupposed that interracial couples had the ability by nature to unite in a marital union.

 

[Sovereign Dream]

Sure there is. It's the same way we distinguish between lovingly committed individuals of opposite sexes: by whether they seek marriage.

A man and his sister seek marriage. 10 men and women seek marriage. The entire population of Lodi seeks marriage. See the issue here?

 

[Sovereign Dream]

SD, do you take bisexual parents into account too?

I'm not sure what you mean by whether I "take them into account."

BTW, I had a difficult time with your blog as well. Not so much the content itself (I've heard these arguments before), but the paragraphs are long. I suggest making your points more succinct. It seems you are able to do that here at RF, though the abrasiveness does tend to put people on the defensive.

Thanks for the feedback.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A man and his sister seek marriage. 10 men and women seek marriage. The entire population of Lodi seeks marriage. See the issue here?

Not really. Explain it to me.

 

[Sovereign Dream]

Not really. Explain it to me.

If you suppose that the (arbitrary) criterion for marriage is just "seeking to marry" then you'd be, in principle, committed to allowing any configuration of individuals who "seek to marry" to be able to "marry."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If you suppose that the (arbitrary) criterion for marriage is just "seeking to marry" then you'd be, in principle, committed to allowing any configuration of individuals who "seek to marry" to be able to "marry."

And explain to me how any of those hypothetical scenarios would be enough of a problem to stop same-sex couples from getting married.

I mean, as it stands right now (and as long as everyone involved consented), there would be nothing stopping siblings, a polyamorous group, or an entire town from all adopting each other. This fact hasn't been an obstacle to allowing adoption; why should it be an obstacle to same-sex marriage?

Edit: just so you're aware, "seeking to marry" is not my only criterion for marriage. It's also not arbitrary - you aren't in favour of forced marriages, are you?

 

[Alceste]

If you suppose that the (arbitrary) criterion for marriage is just "seeking to marry" then you'd be, in principle, committed to allowing any configuration of individuals who "seek to marry" to be able to "marry."

I'm fine with any two consenting adults. Their reasons for wanting to marry are their own business, not mine.