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

linear_occurance
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 10, 2009
Location: Palmer, AK, USA

Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 129

Posted 06/13/09 - 12:58 AM: Subject: Gay marriage	#1
I have been under the opinion for some time now that the conflict between religious zealots and gay couples was one that should go towards the couples. Simply because of the fact that if not, then you are limiting freedoms through uniting religion and state, which in my opinion is bad (for a number of reasons, that I won't go into now), and being inhumane to deprive your fellow man of equal opportunity. However, perhaps the religious have some claim to marriage. Isn't marriage a holy practice? Just like drinking wine and eating crakers in the catholic faith? So, I guess the question is, can you be gay and claim religious rights/practices, if that religion bans homosexuality? Just like I can't claim to be an orthodox jew and eat pork, or calim to be a good christian and covet my neighbor, I can't be gay and get married under a christian roof. However, I am all for the equal rights and seperation of church and state, and that gays should get equal fiscal rights as the straight, along with all of the inherent right of being human (shouldn't need to be said) Its simply inhumane to not do grant these to any member of our species. However, why can't we just change the term marriage for a gay couple, to appease the religous zealots, and eliminate the conflict? If the conflict is really about ultimate equality and maximizing freedoms, why would this be such a big deal? Would it be so bad to be declared "legally bound", or "Bound for life" as opposed to "Married"? I mean if you are practicing gay activities, you can't be an orthodox catholic, so why make a big fuss about not being able to claim catholic marriage status? I'm not saying you don't have a right to your religion, just that if you are gay, you inherently can't claim to be catholic, or christian, or any religion that is against homosexuality. Just like if I wanted to be a nazi, I would be out of luck, because I happen to be jewish. I'm really sounding like a jerk here, but I just wanted to point out this technicality here that everyone seems to be overlooking, and I am sorry if I have offended anyone.

willem
starchild

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 03, 2004
Location: Belgium

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 295

Posted 06/13/09 - 04:19 AM:	#2
Isn't marriage a holy practice Nope, it's a legal practice.
www.msf.org www.icrc.org www.greenpeace.org

swstephe
Tenured Poster

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

Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 3304

Posted 06/13/09 - 05:15 AM:	#3
If marriage is a religious institution, then atheists, agnostics, and anyone else not belonging to a church would not be able to get married, would they. It would also need to be thrown out of all secular governments, (which is pretty much every country except the Vatican), as a theocratically oppressive institution. From my research, I found that marriage has never been a religious institution of any religion. It is a social/economic institution, first, to protect property rights and inheritance. It was a public announcement that got institutionalized under the state, then when churches took over the state, they put a "divine seal of approval", (which is actually more a divine list of restrictions and penalties). It got re-secularized as a registration, (some people want to get rid of the word "license"), but still carries around some religious-authority traditions. Many religious groups do accept and maintain homosexual members and have supported gay marriage anyway. It is a bit ironic -- there is nothing specifically preventing gay marriage in religion, (especially for people outside their membership). Yet there is specific prohibition against adultery in just about every religion that gets ignored and dismissed as part of modern human culture. There is also nothing specific about being Jewish that prevents one from being a Nazi, (there were even Jewish Nazi collaborators). About the only thing that would be contradictory is to simultaneously hold contradictory religious views.
Ethics is the measuring of morality. Morality is the measuring of good. Good is the measuring of benefit. Benefit is the measure of values.

mayor of simpleton
CAT vs. DOGMA

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 20, 2009
Location: Vienna, Austria

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 529

Posted 06/13/09 - 07:39 AM:	#4
What about banning marriage for everyone? If we wish to have a separation of Church and State, then religious arguments have no place in this discussion. Freedom of Religion means Freedom FROM Religion as well. A Government that makes the claim of being a Democracy, should protect the equality of ALL of it's citizens, without regard or bias to Gender, Ethnic Orientation, Social Status assumptions, Gender Orientation, bla bla bla... Either the institution of marriage should be a guarenteed right of all citizens or of none, under the reign of a Democracy. Please provide me with an argument that is not out of religious motivation and convictions for or against gay marriage and for that matter any marriage. God is not a lawyer. Meow! GREG
I am not one to attribute that which I cannot understand immediately to be god(s)-perhaps I will never understand, but god(s) are not defined by my lack of understanding-this is the foundation of dogmas, the pressing of connotative values into the realm of dennotative meaning. - MOS http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIYJERcdHb0 Jerry Sings!

ms anthropist
successful failure

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 11, 2006
Location: on the highest horse

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 378

Posted 06/13/09 - 09:32 AM:	#5
I agree with Linear Occurance, Marriage is a lot of b******, As an Atheist, I wouldn't get married. The only benefit to it, is tax relief, and I believe that cohabitation laws should bypass the necessity to marry for the sake of saving a few hundreds a year in taxes. If the church is against gay people why should gay (or non gay people at that) support the church by observing their pathetic rituals. I recently gave my daughter a pagan naming ceremony.

throng
Profester.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 12, 2008
Location: Downunder.

Total Topics: 43
Total Posts: 803

0 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 06/13/09 - 12:07 PM:	#6
I'm not married and I'm not gay - WHAT ABOUT MY RIGHTS! What a senceless fuss - so long as there's sex in a loving relationship then why worry? Scared you're sinning? Well then you are and marriage make's no difference. If one needs marriage to feel security, to rip off eachother's assets, reduce tax, make the congration happy, please God or whatever else they might find as justification, then the relationship is pretty questionable. See, I'm in love and root like bunnies, but marriage is just insignificant, as are all justifications, in proportion to the relationship itself. If you were from another culture the law would punish such gay love. No-body's stopping the sex so stop the bloody whinging and get into bed! Sheesh!
I know that I don't know, so I don't know if I do.

linear_occurance
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 10, 2009
Location: Palmer, AK, USA

Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 129

Posted 06/13/09 - 01:00 PM:	#7
hmm, suppose I was wrong, maybe I should research a bit more before I claim things :P. If marriage is not strictly a religious institution, then my argument holds no validity. lol, sorry bout that.

jaoman
On the Road...

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 13, 2004
Location: Vancouver, Canada

Total Topics: 82
Total Posts: 1414

Posted 06/13/09 - 01:24 PM:	#8
There are a number of popular confusions going on in this conversation. 1) Marriage and religion. Marriage is not a religious institution. All cultures have marriage customs. Many have customs for secular marriages. Rulers can marry. As can sea captains. The only relationship between marriage and religion is that the task of pronouncing marriage is more commonly left to religion as the other institutions empowered to do so have better things to do. 2) The argument against gay marriage, while often brought forward by Christian groups, is not dependent on Christianity. Very rarely is the argument posed that the Christian god doesn't like gay marriage. The argument is, in fact, that marriage is a institution between opposite genders. This is a secular argument. Theological reason can be added, but need not be. It can be argued sociologically just as well. If we agree that every culture has a form of marriage, then, to understand marriage, we must ask ourselves: what do these institutions have in common that they are all so defined? It's not one man, one woman, though we commonly hear that too in the gay marriage debate. Actually, it's half right. It's usually one man and however many women the culture is willing to give him. It doesn't take a genius to look at this connection and understand what's really going on here. The world over, male genes are born under a death sentence. Unlike women, whose genes are assured continuation through the mere act of procreation, male genes need exclusive access. Otherwise, they risk being out competed by the genes of another male. The simplest way to negate this risk is to isolate the woman. Enter marriage. At the other end of the spectrum, we have the woman. While her genes can't be fooled out of partaking in procreation, that's worth shit if the procreation kills both her and her offspring. Given the length of human pregnancy and nurture period, if the woman and offspring do not have a dependable source of support, they are in serious danger. That is, the man can't knock her up and be off the next evening. She needs him stuck to her. Enter marriage, again. These facts are true across almost all human cultures. The utility of marriage has always been to formalize these two needs. From this perspective, it's hard to say how one could make the argument for gay marriage. It'll make them happy, yes; however, in the eyes of the state marriage implies friendlier tax rules, which are there for the support of raising the child. Whatever religions choose to do, as there is no child being raised, it is against the interest of the state to give people money just because it will make them happy. Therefore, the state ought not to recognize gay marriage.
"With no relation to class or social background, whether it suits them or not, people yearn for a dream. Sustained by a dream, hurt by a dream, revived by a dream, killed by a dream. And even after being abandoned by a dream, it continues to smolder from the bottom of one's heart... probably until the verge of death. A man should envision such a lifetime once. A life spent as a martyr to the god named "dream." - Kentaro Miura

auberonspencer
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 13, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 7

Posted 06/13/09 - 02:49 PM:	#9
The argument seems somewhat circular. To use your example that you can't be an orthodox Jew and eat pork, who says? Orthodox Jews? Yes. So their justification comes from the fact of who they are which is frankly whatever they say they are and so whatever they say goes. Apllying this to gay marriage it is also a circular argument.

swstephe
Tenured Poster

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

Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 3304

Posted 06/13/09 - 07:09 PM:	#10
Even though the OP Author, (sorry to talk in 3rd person), has bowed out, something interesting just occurred to me. Sorry if this will seem like derailing, but bare with me -- I want to restate that "gay marriage" has nothing to do with religion or gender or sexual orientation. Last night, I watched a video by a Harvard Law professor who studied the economic trends of a married couple with 2 kids in America over the past generation. There is has been a huge economic shift from single-income families to dual-income families. In the hopes of increasing their own standard of living by adding an extra income, the net effect is to shift the economic and social structure fundamentally. Housing prices have nearly doubled, after adjusting for inflation, to meet this new availability of funds, for example. I think one thing that wasn't stated, but I was thinking about -- it is no longer economically feasible for someone to remain single any more. Married people became the "middle" of the middle-class. You have to earn about double the average income for your area to be able to purchase a single house because that is what married couples get. The same kind of trends happen in health coverage, taxes and other non-flexible income. I made the connection last night -- this is probably the real reason for the need for gay marriage. I asked my best friend from high school, (who is gay and married to his partner), why he feels marriage is necessary. He said it is for the benefits -- to be able to share medical coverage, incomes, and to justify inheriting wealth, rights and privileges through sickness and death. All the benefits that a single human being can no longer afford without living like a college student. Secular society has basically told everyone that they have to get married or suffer in poverty. Given this problem, there are two obvious solutions -- first, is to prohibit married women from working and let the economy collapse for a while, (which would probably make a lot of religious types very happy), and the second is to allow for gay marriage and polygamy, (in either direction). One of the "hardships" of the move to dual-income standards is the tax hit. Dual-incomes that file jointly are treated as a bigger, wealthier, combined entity, so their tax rate goes up, (despite smaller benefits). Allowing for gay marriage means they will also generate taxes at higher tax brackets. Same go for polygamous relationships, which would finally be able to gain ground on wealthier dual-income families. The benefit to the community is greater income and fewer cases of people needing social services, (due to greater internal family resources). With polygamy, it allows people to combine income and to avoid the "mandatory divorce" that is implicit in marriage break-ups. It is a lot to swallow, so I'll stop for now.
Ethics is the measuring of morality. Morality is the measuring of good. Good is the measuring of benefit. Benefit is the measure of values.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6

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