|
Major Victory for Gay Rights (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Yoepus |
I just thought of this one;
Marriage is supposed to be a sacred bond between a man and a women.
If we now allow this bond to be between a man and a man, or women and women, then how come we can not allow this bond to be made between say two men and one women, or perhaps one man and three women?
Won't this be the same logic, we are discriminating against polygomous people? After all they are consenting adults as well?
I'm curious what logic one could use to agree with the first instance but not the latter. I guess you would have to give up to both.
----------------
Now for the real rant:
Now, I hate to bring the conservative angle in, but I will, and first let me state that I am perfectly cool with gays. I have no problems with their lifestyle, and don't mind if they have lifepartners or what not. My boss is gay, and one of the coolest bosses I know.
Marriage is the historical fundamental building block of society. I do believe in a strong family is essential to create well minded educated and proper individuals and citizens. Marriage creates the strength of the family, this strength was historically explained by religious or cultural authority.
Marriage's purpose is to provide a strong stable structure for the production (:))and raising of children. Without marriage, I believe the environment a child grows in is detremental. This strong stable structure is also provided by the monogomous relationship between man and women.
When you look at it from this perspective - that marriage is the institution of family it brings context into who should have a "right" to marriage.
The government interest should be to create well educated proper citizens, this is best done by re-enforcing the strength and institution of marriage. As such, as Occrider noted many benifits are given to married couples as to support this instiution.
Now if the government were to bestow the "right" (is it really a right?) to marry between man and man, and women and women, it would weaken any significane of the insitution. No longer will it stand for what it has historically, if it simply a symbol of "love" and not the institution of family. From here you are on a dangerous path to a cultural forgetfulness of the value and utility of this institution of marriage; I will believe marriage will continue in its high divorce rates and pathetic understanding of its vows if such a hypocratic allowance as to allows gay marriage is added to it.
The only exception to this rule I can forsee is of a gay couple who intends to adopt or has adopted, in this regard I believe it as vital for that couple to marry as any other to reinforce their strength and provide a stable environment for the child. Still one can either make an exception in allowing gays with children to be allowed to marry (I wouldn't do this as it would introduce some great legal loopholes I am sure), or simply ignore this problem hoping a personal ceremony of lifelong commitment between the two individuals will suffice.
To recap, marriage is a vital instution for a society - without it the value of family degrades and in such the value of the well educated, stable, and proper indivdual, in turn the degredation of the society itself. To avoid degradation to marriage and hence society, don't degrade it. |
|
|
| NYCTrancefan |
| I am admittedly not a deeply religous person, my view on this is that as unfathomable the idea of same-sex marraige may seem to some, the main argument centers around the definition of marraige versus the rights of gays under the laws in relation to this definition. If marraige is a strict union of man and woman by law then there will always be those who frown upon the idea of gay marraiges. I personally feel that two individuals who pay taxes, serve their country and are protected under the laws of the constitution should be able to have this choice. The situation is vastly more complex than this of course, but I feel that ultimately gays are an intrical part of society, like any other citizen and deserves the rights that come along with that including to marry. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| NYCTrancefan, but why? the purpose of marriage is to have kids and create a good environment for them to grow up in - hence the "tax breaks" and other legal manevours in favor of marriage (of course there are also some which are detremental to it). So if the purpose of marriage is to get people to make children and raise them in a proper fashion why should gay people be recongized with this liberty when they can't make children or raise them? |
|
|
| rizen |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shad0wmaster
"Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman," he said. "Today's decision ... violates this important principle. I will work with congressional leaders and others to do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage."
^^^^
what a twat. |
if bush really wants to defend the sanctiity of marriage, then ban the ability to get divorce! what happen until death do us apart? arent half the marriages in the states end up in divorces, most of which are in the south? heh I believe Bush's brother-in-law is getting a divorce at the moment :p |
|
|
| rizen |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
NYCTrancefan, but why? the purpose of marriage is to have kids and create a good environment for them to grow up in - hence the "tax breaks" and other legal manevours in favor of marriage (of course there are also some which are detremental to it). So if the purpose of marriage is to get people to make children and raise them in a proper fashion why should gay people be recongized with this liberty when they can't make children or raise them? |
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=marriage
take note of 1d and 3, which I agree with :p
yes the purpose of marriage is to have kids, and raise them in a "proper fashion", just look at Bush's kids :haha: or how about all the abandoned children who wish they had a parent(s):( |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by rizen
if bush really wants to defend the sanctiity of marriage, then ban the ability to get divorce! what happen until death do us apart? arent half the marriages in the states end up in divorces, most of which are in the south? heh I believe Bush's brother-in-law is getting a divorce at the moment :p |
I don't know if most are in the south or not, its the first time I heard this and I'm not sure I believe it. The divorce rate is defintely a problem. Of course your not going to make anything worse with extremism, but perhaps a greater cost for the ceremony of marriage might do the trick. Some marriages, such as those under Catholisim are very restrictive and divorces are extremely shunned. Problem with marriages is it is hard to restrict them in a legal sense, its the dominion of the state, but it has great implications on the federal level, thats the problem.
| quote: | | yes the purpose of marriage is to have kids, and raise them in a "proper fashion", just look at Bush's kids or how about all the abandoned children who wish they had a parent(s) |
Sure, Bush's kids came out much better then Clinton's child living under a sham of a marriage (an "undeclared divorce") ;)
No but seriously you can't draw minor examples to prove it general incorrect. There have been dozens of study that show that a family with a male and female parent have produced more favorable circumstanes for their children then say a one parent family, especially for the poor. |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
I just thought of this one;
Marriage is supposed to be a sacred bond between a man and a women.
If we now allow this bond to be between a man and a man, or women and women, then how come we can not allow this bond to be made between say two men and one women, or perhaps one man and three women?
Won't this be the same logic, we are discriminating against polygomous people? After all they are consenting adults as well?
I'm curious what logic one could use to agree with the first instance but not the latter. I guess you would have to give up to both. |
“Marriage is supposed to be a sacred bond between a man and a woman.” According to whom? God? This is precisely the reason I don’t believe government has any business sanctioning marriage at all.
| quote: | Now for the real rant:
Now, I hate to bring the conservative angle in, but I will, and first let me state that I am perfectly cool with gays. I have no problems with their lifestyle, and don't mind if they have lifepartners or what not. My boss is gay, and one of the coolest bosses I know.
Marriage is the historical fundamental building block of society. I do believe in a strong family is essential to create well minded educated and proper individuals and citizens. Marriage creates the strength of the family, this strength was historically explained by religious or cultural authority.
Marriage's purpose is to provide a strong stable structure for the production (:))and raising of children. Without marriage, I believe the environment a child grows in is detremental. This strong stable structure is also provided by the monogomous relationship between man and women.
When you look at it from this perspective - that marriage is the institution of family it brings context into who should have a "right" to marriage.
The government interest should be to create well educated proper citizens, this is best done by re-enforcing the strength and institution of marriage. As such, as Occrider noted many benifits are given to married couples as to support this instiution. |
In a society which values freedom, that is, the freedom of individuals, there can be only one fundamental building block, and that is the individual. Not the family, or the race, or the commune or the church. You can certainly believe that the family is essential to creating an optimized citizenry. However, unless you can substantiate these beliefs with empirical evidence which can be objectively analyzed for the establishment of direct causality, then such a belief is not a valid criterion upon which to formulate the legal code of a free society.
Here in the United States, for example, there are many people who believe that a strict Christian upbringing is essential to producing a citizenry which exhibits ethical behavior. This belief, however, is by no means a justification to require individuals to raise their children in accordance with Christian ideals, nor to provide those individuals who choose to do so with tax breaks.
| quote: | Now if the government were to bestow the "right" (is it really a right?) to marry between man and man, and women and women, it would weaken any significane of the insitution. No longer will it stand for what it has historically, if it simply a symbol of "love" and not the institution of family. From here you are on a dangerous path to a cultural forgetfulness of the value and utility of this institution of marriage; I will believe marriage will continue in its high divorce rates and pathetic understanding of its vows if such a hypocratic allowance as to allows gay marriage is added to it.
The only exception to this rule I can forsee is of a gay couple who intends to adopt or has adopted, in this regard I believe it as vital for that couple to marry as any other to reinforce their strength and provide a stable environment for the child. Still one can either make an exception in allowing gays with children to be allowed to marry (I wouldn't do this as it would introduce some great legal loopholes I am sure), or simply ignore this problem hoping a personal ceremony of lifelong commitment between the two individuals will suffice.
To recap, marriage is a vital instution for a society - without it the value of family degrades and in such the value of the well educated, stable, and proper indivdual, in turn the degredation of the society itself. To avoid degradation to marriage and hence society, don't degrade it. |
This hypocrisy of the conservative position never ceases to amaze me. The same people who ardently oppose the imposition of economic programs which socialists believe are necessary to benefit society are eager to embrace the notion that an arbitrary set of values, which they believe are necessary to benefit society, ought to be imposed or encouraged upon the individuals residing in the society.
It is precisely the same argument, just in social terms instead of economic ones. One can either embrace both, as Hobbes and Mussolini would have. Or neither, as anyone who values individual freedom does. To take any other position seems to me to be logically inconsistent.
To the credit of the socialists, at least many of the programs they advocate produce, as a direct result, clear observable benefits to some individuals. The moral authoritarianism of the conservative position, on the other hand, provides little or no objectively analyzable evidence to support their supposition that marriage, or any other set of arbitrary moral standards, produces any benefits to society, or any members of society, at all.
Now, whether in the case of socialism the ends are sufficient to justify the means is highly debatable. I, for one, do not believe so. Ergo, even if the conservatives could demonstrate in precise terms exactly how the traditional institution of marriage and, by extension, family is providing some benefit to society, I still doubt I would be persuaded that these benefits are sufficient to justify the usurpation of the individual freedom to choose whatever lifestyle, in accordance with respect for the natural rights of others, one wishes to partake in.
Regards,
Arbiter |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
“Marriage is supposed to be a sacred bond between a man and a woman.” According to whom? God? This is precisely the reason I don’t believe government has any business sanctioning marriage at all.
|
Your right, I would agree to leave marriage in the realm of religion. But even then you have religions such as the Mormans where polygomy is ok, what do you do then?
Again most families have children in hetrosexual relationships:
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs99/digest98/d98t018.asp
This probably will not hold true with homosexual relationships.
| quote: |
In a society which values freedom, that is, the freedom of individuals, there can be only one fundamental building block, and that is the individual. |
But where do individuals come from? and who are individuals? are children individuals? Not according to the law they are not, they are under custodianship from their parents till they become of legal "individual" age. What are parents, who has the right to determine this custodianship?
According to your very extreme view, no one. The family has no value in the creation of individual as you only recongize the individual and not its creation. You must also realize that the government decides who is an individual, so why can they not decide what a family is?
They do. The government (both federal and state) recongize households and use this to determine taxes and so forth, I believe they should proceed in this way. Currently most government agencies recognize just 3 different types of family households:
1) with two parents (male/female)
2) with one parent (male)
3) with one parent (female)
The government also decides who an individual is. A criminal is not an individual, someone who is severly mentally ill is not an individual, children are not inviduals and so forth. Why do I say this, because all these "individuals" do not share or enjoy the same rights are recongized "individual" consenting adults. Those not classified as individual have their constitutional rights removed in many cases. Neither children, criminals, or the mentally ill can vote for example - a constitutional right.
So yes the creation of the invidual is very important for society. In American society there is typically only one way to raise individuals and that is through family. From here it is argued that families that are more stable produce better environments for their children and hence better individuals.
There are several studies relating two-parent families to the well being of society, such as an increase in their children's education, reduction of crime and so forth compared to one parent families (the alternative to marriage).
| quote: | | Here in the United States, for example, there are many people who believe that a strict Christian upbringing is essential to producing a citizenry which exhibits ethical behavior. This belief, however, is by no means a justification to require individuals to raise their children in accordance with Christian ideals, nor to provide those individuals who choose to do so with tax breaks. |
Of course not the government can't force anyone to do something. But it can prevent people from doing something! If a cult of alien believers abused and molested their children the government could chose to make this cult an illegal organization and prevent people from doing so. It can't however force people to join a cult of alien believers, or chistianty or whatever it be for that matter.
If you do not support the ability of a government to set up a tax plan as it choses to benifit and encourage society, then you should be completely against government subsudies, regressive income tax, welfare, education, scholarships, scientific grants, roads, etc. As all these give advantages to someone over someone else.
| quote: |
This hypocrisy of the conservative position never ceases to amaze me. The same people who ardently oppose the imposition of economic programs which socialists believe are necessary to benefit society are eager to embrace the notion that an arbitrary set of values, which they believe are necessary to benefit society, ought to be imposed or encouraged upon the individuals residing in the society.
|
You can call it hypocrisy I guess, but the conservative "position" supports public education and limited welfare - if this is not an arbitrary set of values which people believe is necessary to benifit soceity I don't know what is. They are not against the government meddling in society, I don't think a society with complete "freedom" can exist, I government will have to create education services, and encourage strong stable environments for the development of its individuals. Conservatives simply disagree in the extent this should be done - they aren't flat against it - those are libetarians.
| quote: | I still doubt I would be persuaded that these benefits are sufficient to justify the usurpation of the individual freedom to choose whatever lifestyle, in accordance with respect for the natural rights of others, one wishes to partake in.
|
Society and government already prevent our individual freedoms with the aforementioned initiatives - add to those social security, medicare, minimum wage, industry regulation, the ability to yell fire in a crowded theatre, and a slew of other government protections. These are all if we come down to it with such a cynical approach as you restraints on our freedoms.
Marriage, just like industry regulations, or minimum wage, is something government deams worthy and hence it exists. |
|
|
| rizen |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
Sure, Bush's kids came out much better then Clinton's child living under a sham of a marriage (an "undeclared divorce") ;) |
guess you didnt get it, when was the last time Chelsea Clinton was caught drinking underage/drunk, doing drugs or getting into underage clubs like Bush's daughters? Don't forget Jeb's kids as well. also didnt Michael Reagan go through a divorce as well? :haha:
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
No but seriously you can't draw minor examples to prove it general incorrect. There have been dozens of study that show that a family with a male and female parent have produced more favorable circumstanes for their children then say a one parent family, especially for the poor. |
Yeah I'll agree with that, especially since my sister and I come from a poor single parent household. I'm doing well, but I can't say the same for my sister, and I had a worse friends and overall community than her growing up. There are also studies that children do worse when parents go through a divorce. While I'm not sure about the total number of same sex divorce rate, I'm confident they are alot lower |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by rizen
guess you didnt get it, when was the last time Chelsea Clinton was caught drinking underage/drunk, doing drugs or getting into underage clubs like Bush's daughters? Don't forget Jeb's kids as well. also didnt Michael Reagan go through a divorce as well? :haha:
|
True dat, but I would rather have my kids drink and have a good time then being a stuck up bitch related to Hillary:D |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
Now, I hate to bring the conservative angle in, but I will, and first let me state that I am perfectly cool with gays. I have no problems with their lifestyle, and don't mind if they have lifepartners or what not. My boss is gay, and one of the coolest bosses I know.
Marriage is the historical fundamental building block of society. I do believe in a strong family is essential to create well minded educated and proper individuals and citizens. Marriage creates the strength of the family, this strength was historically explained by religious or cultural authority.
Marriage's purpose is to provide a strong stable structure for the production (:))and raising of children. Without marriage, I believe the environment a child grows in is detremental. This strong stable structure is also provided by the monogomous relationship between man and women.
When you look at it from this perspective - that marriage is the institution of family it brings context into who should have a "right" to marriage.
The government interest should be to create well educated proper citizens, this is best done by re-enforcing the strength and institution of marriage. As such, as Occrider noted many benifits are given to married couples as to support this instiution.
Now if the government were to bestow the "right" (is it really a right?) to marry between man and man, and women and women, it would weaken any significane of the insitution. No longer will it stand for what it has historically, if it simply a symbol of "love" and not the institution of family. From here you are on a dangerous path to a cultural forgetfulness of the value and utility of this institution of marriage; I will believe marriage will continue in its high divorce rates and pathetic understanding of its vows if such a hypocratic allowance as to allows gay marriage is added to it.
The only exception to this rule I can forsee is of a gay couple who intends to adopt or has adopted, in this regard I believe it as vital for that couple to marry as any other to reinforce their strength and provide a stable environment for the child. Still one can either make an exception in allowing gays with children to be allowed to marry (I wouldn't do this as it would introduce some great legal loopholes I am sure), or simply ignore this problem hoping a personal ceremony of lifelong commitment between the two individuals will suffice.
To recap, marriage is a vital instution for a society - without it the value of family degrades and in such the value of the well educated, stable, and proper indivdual, in turn the degredation of the society itself. To avoid degradation to marriage and hence society, don't degrade it. |
I guess this is one of those rare times when I actually agree with Yoepus. The state shouldn't get itself involved in anyone's personal sexual life, if someone wants to with girls, guys, goats, dead people, or whatever, it's not the problem of the state. But what the state should do is to provide beneficencies to those people that want to have children, because it is of vital social and national interest. There's simply no reasonable explanation as to why gay people should have a tax return. |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| Well, if you wanna give them marriage as just a formality, then it's ok, but they shouldn't get any state subsidies for it. |
|
|
|
|
