Gay marriage: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Politics and Law » Gay marriage » Gay marriage

Gay marriage
Should be banned? Nicley though

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Gay marriage

ciceronianus
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 20, 2008
Location: USA

Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 1021

Last Blog: Trials in which "Failure is not an option"

Posted 10/30/09 - 12:23 PM:	#31
Marriage is already treated as a partnership for legal purposes in many states. There is no reason it should be treated as anything else, for legal purposes. The law shouldn't involve itself in religious views or definitions concerning "marriage." The law should treat any such union as a partnership.
"Let us not pretend to doubt in philosophy what we do not doubt in our hearts."--C.S. Peirce "There is nothing so absurd but some philosopher has said it."--Marcus Tullius Cicero "Philosophy recovers itself when it ceases to be a device for dealing with the problems of philosophers and becomes a method, cultivated by philosophers, for dealing with the problems of men."--John Dewey

unrealist42
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 06, 2003
Location: City of Dreams

Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 2252

Posted 10/30/09 - 08:18 PM:	#32
If people want to define marriage in terms that discriminate then the constitution does not recognize or tolerate them. If they persist then all laws concerning marriage should be rescinded and the state should just get out of the business of marriage. The case of gay marriage is a simple matter of the arbitrary denial of equal protection under the law, unconstitutional on its face. There is no reason anyone can give to defend this attack against gays that does not stink of the declaration made by the slave holders of the distant past and the Nazis of the not so distant past, that there exists some moral right to discriminate against other human beings for no other reason then that they are different. This right does not exist. If one has some moral right to discriminate against anyone, for whatever reason, then one claims the right to discriminate against all for no reason. Everyone becomes the victim of such righteous moralizing discrimination. This is not about gays, it is about seizing the hearts of people. It is about turning people into rampaging beasts who are blinded to the great contradiction of their own kind nature and their treatment of others who are but a half step away from being them. It is about hatred for mankind. Nothing more, nothing less. It is the beast that walks among us.

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island

Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 3304

Posted 10/30/09 - 08:40 PM:	#33
What are the reasons the government even legislates marriage in the first place? It seems a nice idea to lift that burden of marriage and divorce from already economically stressed communities and focus more on criminal behavior. As far as I can think -- it only really defines inheritance and whether someone can claim their rights have been violated.
Ethics is the measuring of morality. Morality is the measuring of good. Good is the measuring of benefit. Benefit is the measure of values.

ciceronianus
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 20, 2008
Location: USA

Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 1021

Last Blog: Trials in which "Failure is not an option"

Posted 10/31/09 - 04:48 AM:	#34
swstephe wrote: What are the reasons the government even legislates marriage in the first place? It seems a nice idea to lift that burden of marriage and divorce from already economically stressed communities and focus more on criminal behavior. As far as I can think -- it only really defines inheritance and whether someone can claim their rights have been violated. The law's regulation as I understand it (I don't practice in the area of domestic law, but it has implications for many areas) primarily involves property rights, as between the partners and as it may affect those who deal with the marital partnership, and children. As to property, there will always be disputes of some kind, and it makes sense that the law set forth ways of resolving those disputes. As to children, they're obviously different from property, but again disputes will arise, especially in cases of dissolution of the marital partnership, and those disputes must be resolved.
"Let us not pretend to doubt in philosophy what we do not doubt in our hearts."--C.S. Peirce "There is nothing so absurd but some philosopher has said it."--Marcus Tullius Cicero "Philosophy recovers itself when it ceases to be a device for dealing with the problems of philosophers and becomes a method, cultivated by philosophers, for dealing with the problems of men."--John Dewey

To Mega Therion
Grand Moff

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 11, 2009

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 185

Posted 10/31/09 - 05:59 AM:	#35
From what I've seen in this thread the people who would deny gays the right to marriage use the following two, in my opinion rather flimsy, arguments: (1) That historically a marriage was restricted to partners of opposite sexes. Well, historically voting was restricted to one sex. You know, the one that matters. Property rights as well. And don't even get me started on those loony leftists taking away our historical right to tax the peasants.* (2) That marriage is strictly for the purpose of procreation. This probably wasn't true even in the ancient world (family alliances, inheritance and the like being a more obvious reason); in any case this is simply not how we as a society think of marriage today. And I have a feeling that most of those who advance this argument couldn't stomach taking the right away from infertile couples. Besides, even if one insists that children are an essential part of marriage, even gay couples can (well, they should be able to; it depends on the country in question, I guess) adopt. So, how is a family consisting of a gay couple and an adopted child any different from a 'traditional' nuclear family? * Ironically enough one branch of my family was noble. You foul peasants.

Arkady
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 29, 2009

Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 441

Posted 10/31/09 - 06:46 AM:	#36
To Mega Therion wrote: (2) That marriage is strictly for the purpose of procreation. This probably wasn't true even in the ancient world (family alliances, inheritance and the like being a more obvious reason); in any case this is simply not how we as a society think of marriage today. And I have a feeling that most of those who advance this argument couldn't stomach taking the right away from infertile couples. I agree totally, TMT. The procreation argument is a red herring, pure and simple, meant as a cover for homophobia. Nobody forms PACs, spends millions of dollars, buys television time, etc. to fight gay marriage because gays can't reproduce. The fact is, they find homosexuality objectionable from some gut feeling/aesthetic sensibility and misguided "morality", usually arising from the superstitious bigotry of religion. Edited by Arkady on 10/31/09 - 07:02 AM
"Sit down before fact like a little child, and be prepared to give up every preconceived notion. Follow humbly wherever and to whatever abyss Nature leads, or you shall learn nothing." -T.H. Huxley

Odin
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 09, 2009

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 205

Posted 10/31/09 - 12:30 PM:	#37
swstephe wrote: What are the reasons the government even legislates marriage in the first place? It seems a nice idea to lift that burden of marriage and divorce from already economically stressed communities and focus more on criminal behavior. As far as I can think -- it only really defines inheritance and whether someone can claim their rights have been violated. If i understand it correctly it is because pro-gay marriage people don't want churches to be able to discriminate on the issue of sexuality, and people against it don't want churches to be sued for denying "rights" to gays. I would agree with getting the government out of it altogether, as long as churches are allowed to "discriminate" without punishment.

davidasearles
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 15, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 131

Posted 10/31/09 - 12:40 PM:	#38
Odin wrote: If i understand it correctly it is because pro-gay marriage people don't want churches ...." You understanding it correctly is an awfully big if.

Odin
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 09, 2009

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 205

Posted 10/31/09 - 02:33 PM:	#39
davidasearles wrote: You understanding it correctly is an awfully big if. Then perhaps you can clarify what's wrong with what I said. Otherwise all you are doing is appealing to various fallacies which tells me you have no real argument to make.

davidasearles
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 15, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 131

Posted 10/31/09 - 04:53 PM:	#40
Your fallacy is to generalize all persons who would advocate for allowing on an equal basis same sex marriage as also wanting churches to not be able to decide who they should agree to have married. In both Vermont and New Hampshire where same sex marriage recently was provided for in state law, exceptions were written into the law by the very same legislators who voted in having same sex marriage as an option, provisions that spelled out in very clear language that the legislation would not require clergy people to perform same sex weddings. So your premise that is a mere over-generalization, at best.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.