|
On February 11 2011 15:32 holy_war wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2011 14:36 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On February 11 2011 14:28 holy_war wrote:
While I am against gay marriage, I pro civil union that grants the couple equal spousal rights. My favorite pro-gay marriage argument is "We should allow gay marriages so they can enjoy the joys of divorce." I'll ask you the same question I asked the other anti-gay-marriage guy, would you support purging "marriage" from law? No I would not because I think the term "marriage" is still highly regarded in our society. Are you arguing for "marriage" to be purged in favor of "civil union" from a legal standpoint?
Yeah. And of course it's highly regarded, but that doesn't mean it has to be a legal term. Hell, with the way most people view government, it might be better as a completely civil, non-legal term. I can't really see why people would have a problem with this. It's not like anyone would suddenly be unable to say "we're married!" or anything.
How would replacing "marriage" with "civil union" in law do anything to how marriage is regarded from a social standpoint?
|
Well, even though "slippery slope" is a fallacy, that line of reasoning is nonetheless oftentimes quite valid, at least in its conclusion.
James Madison's response to Patrick Henry's General Assessment Bill uses the slippery slope argument as one of its core components. In essence, Henry wanted to implement state support for religion in the form of tax support. Each taxpayer would choose which church would receive his/her portion of the tax money. Madison argued, among other things, that this violated the Virgina Bill of Rights and that, if the legislature could in effect 'establish' Christianity (and particular forms of it at that, as the Baptists, Quakers, and Mennonites were extremely opposed to this tax support) it could just as easily nominate a particular Christian sect to receive tax support. Likewise, if the legislature could violate a single element of the fundamental law of Virginia, it could turn around and run roughshod over the rest of the enshrined rights of the people.
Of course, there are huuuge differences between the application of that and gay marriage in terms of slippery slope, but its interesting nonetheless
Also, I noticed some people mentioning religious law in the United States. It's important to note that, regardless of our contemporary views, the 1st Amendment is worded to be extremely limiting, especially given as it only pertains to Congress as per original intent (a method of interpreting the Constitution which has largely been discredited). Remember that it was the same Framers who wrote the first amendment and then literally turned around and paid for Christian Protestant missionaries to spread the faith among natives. Likewise, all public schools were Protestant in their teachings (including using the King James Version of the Bible) and federal and state support for religious schools was commonplace for decades. Hell, Georgetown was founded with a federal land grant!
The "establishment" of religion is something that is extremely vague in terms of what the hell establishment really means.
I don't recall if anyone brought up polygamy, but remember that the government retains the right to interfere with the practice, not the belief, of religion. But that's another matter entirely.
As for gay marriage, I firmly believe it is simply a matter of time before it is ruled to be constitutional (all the great political questions in the United States are solved in the courts). If "separate but equal" was deemed unconstitutional, I can't legally understand how, in the end, gay marriage can be prevented. So long as the legal institution of marriage exists with differences between it and a civil union, denying gays the right to marry is a clear violation of their civil liberties. Even if civil unions had 100% of the same legal benefits of a marriage, the logic behind striking "separate but equal" from the lawbooks still applies.
In short, there's no good legal and, in the scope of the Constitution, reasonable constitutional justification for prohibition of gay marriage, at least from the small amount of research I've put into it.
|
5003 Posts
A word or an idea is misused is an externality.
This is the core of the matter. Don't strawman the issue otherwise.
|
|
|
On February 11 2011 15:37 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2011 07:40 Comeh wrote:
Though its a silly comparison, it wasn't too long ago that black people weren't legally considered people (well, sorta) in the united states. Should we impress our beliefs of something upon others? So you would allow men to marry more than one woman as in other countries? After all who are you to impose your belief system upon others? Show nested quote +
Or, ultimately, who are you to say that marriage is between a man and a woman? Why is your opinion correct over others? Hasn't there been other things that have been true for many years that is now not seen as being true (woman as being the care takers of the house)? Should it stay true forever just because its true now?
I do not think tradition is a bad thing. I know a few gay guys and what might surprise you is hardly any of them actually want gay marriage to be allowed , they are happy with the way things are now.
Strawman
The issue is not about polygamy, or bestiality, or anything else. It's about marriage between two consenting adults that happen to be of the same gender.
Can you give a LEGITIMATE LOGICAL reason as to why this is a bad thing??
|
Blazinghand
United States25552 Posts
The main thing about the gay marriage slippery slope is that you have to allow gay marriage... if you start outlawing gay marriage, and have the government step in and say who can marry who, it's a slippery slow and it's only a matter of time before the government outlaws interracial marriage, interreligious marriage, and eventually all of marriage itself.
To fight the slippery slope, we must not ban gay marriage-- or else who knows what could happen. The tradition of marriage is under assault by these people trying to stop some marriages, and we must defend the sanctity of all gay marriages, lest others come under assault.
|
On February 11 2011 15:37 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2011 07:40 Comeh wrote:
Though its a silly comparison, it wasn't too long ago that black people weren't legally considered people (well, sorta) in the united states. Should we impress our beliefs of something upon others? So you would allow men to marry more than one woman as in other countries? After all who are you to impose your belief system upon others? Show nested quote +
Or, ultimately, who are you to say that marriage is between a man and a woman? Why is your opinion correct over others? Hasn't there been other things that have been true for many years that is now not seen as being true (woman as being the care takers of the house)? Should it stay true forever just because its true now?
I do not think tradition is a bad thing. I know a few gay guys and what might surprise you is hardly any of them actually want gay marriage to be allowed , they are happy with the way things are now.
Using slippery slope and an anecdote in the same post is a pretty bizarre way to argue, lol.
|
Some food for thought. What about atheist couples who become married via a courthouse, with no religious involvement? That shouldn't be labeled a marriage either considering that there was no ceremony with no priest/pastor etc. You can't pick and choose the parts of the bible/religion you want to follow and ignore the rest.
Strike the term marriage from all legal terminology and replace it with civil union. Leave the term marriage in the churches where it belongs. If you are truly a christian, whether your government labels it marriage or civil union or whatever, their name for it shouldn't matter because you went through the steps of your religion to be married.
The argument isn't about the name, its about equal treatment of people. Its ridiculous how blind people can be.
|
On February 11 2011 15:37 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2011 07:40 Comeh wrote:
Though its a silly comparison, it wasn't too long ago that black people weren't legally considered people (well, sorta) in the united states. Should we impress our beliefs of something upon others? So you would allow men to marry more than one woman as in other countries? After all who are you to impose your belief system upon others? Show nested quote +
Or, ultimately, who are you to say that marriage is between a man and a woman? Why is your opinion correct over others? Hasn't there been other things that have been true for many years that is now not seen as being true (woman as being the care takers of the house)? Should it stay true forever just because its true now?
I do not think tradition is a bad thing. I know a few gay guys and what might surprise you is hardly any of them actually want gay marriage to be allowed , they are happy with the way things are now.
You "knowing a few gay guys" does not give an accurate representation of what the majority of them do or do not want. I highly doubt any of them stated " I don't want gay marriage to be allowed" because frankly why would they? It means nothing to them if gay marriage is or isn't allowed because they still have a choice either way.
Your first argument pretty much proves the OP's point, it's a classic slippery slope argument that has no real bearing on reality.
The thing about tradition is that it CAN BE a bad thing( like you know...slavery or other such traditional things from way back when.) I think the word marriage should be stripped from a legal standpoint because it gives the Church a false sense of power in a place it shouldn't have...governmental legal issues. If marriages didn't grant couples a plethora of rights that you otherwise wouldn't have than people wouldn't give two shits if gay marriage was legal or not.
Unfortunately for the church marriage gives a ton of fringe benefits, several of which like hospital visitation are rather important for a strong relationship. You can keep your marriage if you want, but the word marriage itself should be replaced by Civil Union in every place that it's mentioned in law. If you want to be real technical about it I am not " married" to my wife. We never went and had a priest bless our union or any other such thing because I'm not religious. Without all that I can't rightly be considered married because well...I'm really not. In the eyes of the law however I am treated as if I had simply because of a word that's used and a piece of paper I own.
|
Well, I just wanted to point out a few things after reading this blog.
First of all, for people of religious nature (I phrase it like this to try and be as encompassing as possible of people of faith) who look to their church for guidance and truth (we will leave out whether or not this is a good thing, as that is a completely separate issue and too much debate could come about concerning that), they have legitimate claims to not want gay marriage to be legalized. If the Church is to say gay marriage is wrong, followers can't simply say F off I think they should be married. You can't pick and choose at your own personal whim if what the church does is right or wrong. (READ: now this is not to say that you can't disagree or question, but a lot of people do think about it and are conflicted, so the church is where they turn. DO NOT get what I said confused with "People must accept and do everything the Church says." If they see the church's opinion and decide they agree or disagree is their prerogative, but we cannot blame them for their choice, no more than we could disagree with someone being catholic and blame them for going to church or listening to what their pastor says.)
Second of all, for the people who suggested or agreed with replacing marriage with civil union. No, you are wrong in my opinion. I am not saying that this can't be done, and you could be right in saying it should be done. However, to simply say "lets get the red pen out and cross out marriage and write in civil union" is simple minded and naive. It can't be done by a swift doctoring of the records. There is too much importance already placed on the word marriage for it to just "be done" like that. Second of all, if anyone has really studied American Constitutional Law (I will assume that this is where most of the discussion was considered in context of) than you will know the complications that can arise from that. For example, the difference between the "clear and present danger test" laid out in the Schenck US Supreme Court Case and the "Bad tendency test" laid out in the Abrams case is differentiated substantially simply because of the changing in wording. They look similar on face value, but because of the word changing in the latter, the test was dramatically changed.
I am not saying that it would be a bad thing to replace it, I am not saying that we shouldn't try to, I am simply saying that everyone suggests that like it is some easy simple fix to the issue, and it is not.
Lastly, I like how proponents of Gay marriage being legal like to use logic to talk about the issue. When someone disagrees though, they are called a bigot, among other things. Ad hominem/poisoning the well fallacy. I just laughed when I saw people do it in this blog because it really is ironic.
|
I agree. Taeyeon is beautiful.
|
Also, to avoid any of you calling me a sophist for not posting my opinion and simply trying to argue against yours.
I am for gay marriage. I see no reason why two people of the same sex who have the same love, admiration and devotion to each other should not be able to enjoy the same benefits of heterosexual couples. I don't want to know that a person on their deathbed could not see their significant other (or whatever the politically correct term is today) because they did not have the benefits of marriage from the state.
I don't lash out and call people who are against it bigots and religious extremists though, as is the popular thing to do for many people who are proponents of gay marriage. I understand the real reluctance that some people have to it. I just disagree with them...respectfully.
|
On February 11 2011 21:17 Mikusbunkarus wrote:
Second of all, for the people who suggested or agreed with replacing marriage with civil union. No, you are wrong in my opinion. I am not saying that this can't be done, and you could be right in saying it should be done. However, to simply say "lets get the red pen out and cross out marriage and write in civil union" is simple minded and naive. It can't be done by a swift doctoring of the records. There is too much importance already placed on the word marriage for it to just "be done" like that. Second of all, if anyone has really studied American Constitutional Law (I will assume that this is where most of the discussion was considered in context of) than you will know the complications that can arise from that. For example, the difference between the "clear and present danger test" laid out in the Schenck US Supreme Court Case and the "Bad tendency test" laid out in the Abrams case is differentiated substantially simply because of the changing in wording. They look similar on face value, but because of the word changing in the latter, the test was dramatically changed.
Could you be more specific on your first point? The entire issue is that there is so much importance placed on the word marriage due to tradition and religious groups trying to take claim over the ownership of the word. Of course they might get angry, but "their" word shouldn't be in law in the first place.
As for the wording possibly changing policy, can you be more specific on how any ambiguities/complications could arise from "marriage"->"civil union"? I'm not convinced by your parallel.
|
On February 11 2011 17:06 xxpack09 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2011 15:37 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On February 11 2011 07:40 Comeh wrote:
Though its a silly comparison, it wasn't too long ago that black people weren't legally considered people (well, sorta) in the united states. Should we impress our beliefs of something upon others? So you would allow men to marry more than one woman as in other countries? After all who are you to impose your belief system upon others?
Or, ultimately, who are you to say that marriage is between a man and a woman? Why is your opinion correct over others? Hasn't there been other things that have been true for many years that is now not seen as being true (woman as being the care takers of the house)? Should it stay true forever just because its true now?
I do not think tradition is a bad thing. I know a few gay guys and what might surprise you is hardly any of them actually want gay marriage to be allowed , they are happy with the way things are now. Strawman The issue is not about polygamy, or bestiality, or anything else. It's about marriage between two consenting adults that happen to be of the same gender. Can you give a LEGITIMATE LOGICAL reason as to why this is a bad thing??
and open the gates to legalize other forms of marriage, each one of which will further violate the sanctity of marriage.
So i will restate my original question in this thread , what was the OP inferring when he speaks about 'illegal' forms of marriage if not polygamy or bestiality? Marriage between first cousins? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7238356.stm
"The vast majority of marriages in the Muslim community of Bradford, 80% are trans-continental and the majority of those are to cousins and many of those do result in either infant mortality or recessive disorders that I have seen," she told Today.
I am morally against gay marriage and gay adoption , like how some people are opposed to abortion or US soldiers being the 'peacekeepers' of the world.Once again , marriage = 1 man and 1 woman.
|
Nettles, please answer the question I've asked of you~
On February 11 2011 14:22 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2011 07:12 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On February 10 2011 23:19 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:
Would you support purging marriage from law and replacing it (in law) with civil unions equal for both gay and straight unions? Marriage would still exist, of course, but only in the realm of religion / personal life. no Uh why not? Reasoning please?
|
Well it sounds like something a crazy liberal would legislate.
2 Gay people cannot theoretically procreate therefore it isn't marriage , two men cannot provide a balanced upbringing for potential children (even if they could have any).
Lack of morals = one of the big reasons the west is in decline.
As long as stuff is CHEAP who cares if it's made by slaves in China working 16 hours a day for a bowl of rice.One example of many.
|
On February 11 2011 23:38 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
Well it sounds like something a crazy liberal would legislate.
2 Gay people cannot theoretically procreate therefore it isn't marriage , two men cannot provide a balanced upbringing for potential children (even if they could have any).
Lack of morals = one of the big reasons the west is in decline.
As long as stuff is CHEAP who cares if it's made by slaves in China working 16 hours a day for a bowl of rice.One example of many.
Which is why old people and sterile people are also barred from marrying.
Yeah your morals = absolute morals and since the West doesn't follow YOUR morals it's in decline, ok.
...lol
|
On February 11 2011 23:38 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
Well it sounds like something a crazy liberal would legislate.
2 Gay people cannot theoretically procreate therefore it isn't marriage , two men cannot provide a balanced upbringing for potential children (even if they could have any).
Lack of morals = one of the big reasons the west is in decline.
As long as stuff is CHEAP who cares if it's made by slaves in China working 16 hours a day for a bowl of rice.One example of many.
Should sterile men or women be banned from marriage?
You seem to think marriage involved procreation by definition, but marriage is just a legal framework.
Having gay members of a group is highly advantageous in a number of situations, discussing morality rather than evolutionary functionality is really the wrong conversation to have.
Yeah, the West isn't declining either XD. FUD 24\7?
|
On February 11 2011 23:38 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
As long as stuff is CHEAP who cares if it's made by slaves in China working 16 hours a day for a bowl of rice.One example of many.
I happen to be in China right now, the standard pay for sweatshop workers is actually decent compared to other developing countries. Prices of necessities like rice + flour are kept low; most of the people who leave their subsistence farms to go to factories aren't going just out of need for food, but out of ambition to buy a place to live in the future or raise kids with an education, not unlike the ambitions of the poor in the West.
One of the main reasons China's been able to develop so quickly is its manufacturing strategy, which involves selling internally for a loss (thus keeping prices low here) until the product is good enough to sell for a profit overseas (usually it's still cheaper than competitors due to the artificially low currency). China's getting itself a pretty good deal, you don't need to worry about the guys over here.
Crazies like you who are completely closed off to non-conservative values, however...
|
On February 11 2011 23:38 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
Well it sounds like something a crazy liberal would legislate.
2 Gay people cannot theoretically procreate therefore it isn't marriage , two men cannot provide a balanced upbringing for potential children (even if they could have any).
Lack of morals = one of the big reasons the west is in decline.
As long as stuff is CHEAP who cares if it's made by slaves in China working 16 hours a day for a bowl of rice.One example of many.
I don't ever *want* to have kids.
Am I allowed to get married?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
