Gay marriage question

[zapatos]

My error. I was conflating the two. I forget this is an international forum and the bee-in-the-bonnet here is about church-sanctioned marriage atm.

 

I didn't realize that. In that respect I agree with you completely. The church gets to make the rules for those who choose to be members of their club.

[StringJunky]

 

I didn't realize that. In that respect I agree with you completely. The church gets to make the rules for those who choose to be members of their club.

Yes.

[CharonY]

Co-habitation for a period of time is equivalent to marriage in Canada.

If you live as husband and wife, even if not officially married, you are granted all benefits while living, in 'divorce' and as a survivor.

Being 'married' has little to do with it.

 

I don't think that is correct. I assume you refer to Canadian common-law unions? From what I read it appears that they fall under provincial rights with quite some differences. One example I found was Quebec where certain protections do not exist for partners (e.g. spousal support). From a legislative standpoint the issue is also that while they may have the same rights de facto, they can changed independent of laws that affect marriages.

[iNow]

Well, they ARE different. One is hetero, the other isn't.

What relevant secular differences, though?

 

Your argument equally applies to mixed race versus similar race couples. Do you mean to imply that people of different races also should have a different term than "marriage?" What about people from different nations, with different hair and eye color, or different religions...should they be prevented from using the term marriage?

 

If not, why not? What is the relevant secular difference between mixed race marriages or any of the others noted and same sex marriages? Pay special attention to my use of the terms "relevant" and "secular" when sharing your reply.

[MigL]

Zapatos makes the point in post #18, that societies, through government and laws, tries to encourage behavior which is beneficial to that society. He cites mortgages to encourage home buying, marriage benefits to encourage the nuclear family, and others I could add like children's benefits to encourage child bearing, etc.

 

If we all agree ( or do we ???) that the best environment for children's development is the one mother/one father family, with others such as same sex parents, or single parent, or even no parent, getting worse and worse, does society then, have the right to give an advantage to that kind of family ?

And as a result, is this equality for gay marriages making things worse for children ?

 

( it took a while, but that's what I was getting at , Zapatos )

[hypervalent_iodine]

If we all agree ( or do we ???) that the best environment for children's development is the one mother/one father family, with others such as same sex parents, or single parent, or even no parent, getting worse and worse, does society then, have the right to give an advantage to that kind of family ?

And as a result, is this equality for gay marriages making things worse for children ?

 

( it took a while, but that's what I was getting at , Zapatos )

I certainly don't agree. Growing up with one or two missing parents is hardly the same as growing up in an environment with two parents, homosexual or not.

 

Incidentally, the research also does not agree.

 

http://whatweknow.law.columbia.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-wellbeing-of-children-with-gay-or-lesbian-parents/

[zapatos]

I do not know which environment is best for children, but I suppose some research could rank them based on certain parameters and I would not be surprised if one father/one mother appeared at the top of the list. But whatever environment landed on top, that would only be the best environment on average. I've known a number of two-parent families where the children would have been better off in almost any other environment. Hence, while one environment may be the best on average, I don't feel like any good environment for children should be discouraged simply because it is not the best.

 

I feel government is generally obligated to create laws and policies that benefit society, and thus government certainly has the right to give advantages to certain groups or individuals who create healthy environments for children. Unfortunately what is 'best' changes over time, and the ability of government to fairly and impartially judge what is best for society, and how far to go, is suspect.

[MigL]

Oh I agree, having two loving parents of any kind, is better than two heterosexual crackheads as parents. Heck, no parents would be better in that situation.

But, the government also gives child benefits to people who have no business being parents, or marriage benefits to people who cannot stay faithfully married. So it basically looks at the ideal situations, not realistic ones.

 

I guess what I'm driving at is, should a government/society have the right to discriminate against certain groups to the benefit of others in order to 'engineer' the kind of society it wishes to be ?

 

( or is this off topic ? )

[StringJunky]

I do not know which environment is best for children, but I suppose some research could rank them based on certain parameters and I would not be surprised if one father/one mother appeared at the top of the list. But whatever environment landed on top, that would only be the best environment on average. I've known a number of two-parent families where the children would have been better off in almost any other environment. Hence, while one environment may be the best on average, I don't feel like any good environment for children should be discouraged simply because it is not the best.

 

I feel government is generally obligated to create laws and policies that benefit society, and thus government certainly has the right to give advantages to certain groups or individuals who create healthy environments for children. Unfortunately what is 'best' changes over time, and the ability of government to fairly and impartially judge what is best for society, and how far to go, is suspect.

in my case, i would have been better off without either. I agree, the notion of a particular family configuration, in reality, may not be the best that is available.

Edited February 27, 2017 by StringJunky

[zapatos]

Oh I agree, having two loving parents of any kind, is better than two heterosexual crackheads as parents. Heck, no parents would be better in that situation.

But, the government also gives child benefits to people who have no business being parents, or marriage benefits to people who cannot stay faithfully married. So it basically looks at the ideal situations, not realistic ones.

 

I guess what I'm driving at is, should a government/society have the right to discriminate against certain groups to the benefit of others in order to 'engineer' the kind of society it wishes to be ?

 

( or is this off topic ? )

I want to be careful around using the word 'discriminate'.

 

I find it acceptable to offer a benefit for one type of behavior while not offering the benefit for another type of behavior. For example, giving a tax deduction for a mortgage but not giving a tax deduction for a car loan. I would not call that discrimination as anyone can take advantage of the mortgage tax deduction. I would also not call it discrimination to not give you and your father the same benefits that were given to married couples.

 

What I don't find acceptable (and what is barred under the Equal Protection clause of the US Constitution) is to offer a benefit for a type of behavior, while only allowing a specific class of citizens to take advantage of that benefit. In my mind, that is discrimination and should not be allowed.

 

Hence, while it is acceptable to offer benefits to married couples that are not offered to unmarried couples, it is not acceptable to limit who can take advantage of marriage benefits once offered**.

 

**There are of course exceptions, but they must be reasonable exceptions.

[Alfred001]

Folks, lets try to stay on topic. Let's discuss whether pro-gay marriage folks feel it's ok to have a situation where the civil partners are afforded all the same legal rights as married people, or is it important to give them the term "marriage," as well.

 

What relevant secular differences, though?

Your argument equally applies to mixed race versus similar race couples. Do you mean to imply that people of different races also should have a different term than "marriage?" What about people from different nations, with different hair and eye color, or different religions...should they be prevented from using the term marriage?

If not, why not? What is the relevant secular difference between mixed race marriages or any of the others noted and same sex marriages? Pay special attention to my use of the terms "relevant" and "secular" when sharing your reply.

 

That IS a secular difference. Its biology, not religion.

My argument doesn't apply to mixed race or anything else. Marriage has traditionally been defined as a union btw a man and a woman, race doesn't enter into it, nor any of the other things you mention.

 

 

 

They wanted a marriage rather than a second-rate thing called a "civil partnership" (which, I think, was just invented to keep the bishops quiet).

 

They wanted complete equality. And why not.

 

Who says its second-rate, you do.

Who cares what the thing is called? (I'm arguing withn the premise of "what if they had all the same legal rights")

[StringJunky]

Folks, lets try to stay on topic. Let's discuss whether pro-gay marriage folks feel it's ok to have a situation where the civil partners are afforded all the same legal rights as married people, or is it important to give them the term "marriage," as well.

 

 

That IS a secular difference. Its biology, not religion.

 

My argument doesn't apply to mixed race or anything else. Marriage has traditionally been defined as a union btw a man and a woman, race doesn't enter into it, nor any of the other things you mention.

 

 

Who says its second-rate, you do.

 

Who cares what the thing is called? (I'm arguing withn the premise of "what if they had all the same legal rights")

You need to ask gay people but I suspect iNow echoes the view of many of those people; they want equality and using a different word for the same thing for a different group is not.

Edited March 5, 2017 by StringJunky

[iNow]

That IS a secular difference. Its biology, not religion.

Biology is indeed a secular difference, but it is not relevant.

 

There is nothing relevant to the institution of marriage that people of opposite sex can do that people of same sex cannot. If you disagree, it would be useful for you to share what that relevant difference is.

 

My argument doesn't apply to mixed race or anything else.

Again, why not? That was my question to you and you've done little more than evade it.

 

Your lines appear arbitrary. Some groups surpass your "approved to marry" threshold while others do not. Please clarify why you draw the lines you do, why some groups like mixed races or people with different hair color are okay to marry but not people with similar genitals.

 

Please clarify: why it is okay for mixed races to marry, but not same sex couples?

 

Marriage has traditionally been defined as a union btw a man and a woman

Yes, and black people have "traditionally" been defined as 3/5ths of a person ineligible to vote, women have "traditionally" been defined as property themselves traded through marriage for livestock and land and to settle debts.

 

So what?

 

"It's always been this way" does not a good or convincing argument make. Are you able to make a better one?

 

Who cares what the thing is called?

Apparently, YOU DO. You know... Not to put too fine a point on it or anything...

 

It's disingenuous in the extreme to suggest that the label is irrelevant and to then use that assertion as the base of your entire position that it should be labeled something else.

 

If it truly doesn't matter "what the thing is called," then we seem to agree that we should just call it marriage.

[CharonY]

To emphasize that, if there are two legal constructs that are identical, why would one give them two different names? Or why would one do that to highlight a factor that is legally inconsequential?

Edited March 5, 2017 by CharonY

[Strange]

Who says its second-rate, you do.

 

No, they do. The people who feel they are being discriminated against. (And, although I don't know the details, I'm not sure that marriage and civil partnerships have identical legal rights.)

 

 

Who cares what the thing is called? (I'm arguing withn the premise of "what if they had all the same legal rights")

 

Apparently, a lot of people care. Bot the homosexual couples who wanted a marriage rather than a civil partnership and the heterosexual couples who want a civil partnership rather than a marriage.

[MigL]

Biology is indeed a secular difference, iNow.

And there is something relevant to the institution of marriage that people of opposite sex can do that people of same sex cannot.

They can procreate !!

( really didn't think I'd need to point that out )

 

And, again, if society deems that a worthwhile goal, then there are added incentives towards that end.

( although the need and willingness to adopt is commendable and should be encouraged among gay couples )

[Delta1212]

Folks, lets try to stay on topic. Let's discuss whether pro-gay marriage folks feel it's ok to have a situation where the civil partners are afforded all the same legal rights as married people, or is it important to give them the term "marriage," as well.

 

 

 

That IS a secular difference. Its biology, not religion.

My argument doesn't apply to mixed race or anything else. Marriage has traditionally been defined as a union btw a man and a woman, race doesn't enter into it, nor any of the other things you mention.

 

 

 

Who says its second-rate, you do.

Who cares what the thing is called? (I'm arguing withn the premise of "what if they had all the same legal rights")

If no one cared what the thing was called, there'd be no reason to argue that it shouldn't all be called by the same name. After all, who cares what it's called?

[iNow]

Biology is indeed a secular difference, iNow.

And there is something relevant to the institution of marriage that people of opposite sex can do that people of same sex cannot.

They can procreate !!

( really didn't think I'd need to point that out )

Thank you for stepping so cluelessly into my rhetorical trap.

 

Procreation is ALSO irrelevant to marriage.

 

There are no laws preventing the infertile and elderly or postmenopausal from being wed or mandating theirs be called a civil union.

 

Further, there are no laws requiring that couples planning to marry first validate both their willingness and capacity to generate offspring, nor are there people suggesting we call theirs a civil union if children won't be produced.

 

Would you like to try again?

 

What RELEVANT and SECULAR differences are there between a union of people with different genital plumbing and people with similar genital plumbing that warrant the difference in approach being suggested?

Edited March 5, 2017 by iNow

[MigL]

I'm clueless ?

Does not marriage STILL provide the majority of procreation by our species ?

So if a government wants to encourage that, it would naturally favor marriage between people who can procreate.

 

Got a clue yet ?

[Delta1212]

I'm clueless ?

Does not marriage STILL provide the majority of procreation by our species ?

So if a government wants to encourage that, it would naturally favor marriage between people who can procreate.

 

Got a clue yet ?

Does this mean couples known to be infertile should not be provided the benefits of a marriage? Should couples who choose not to have children be prosecuted for tax fraud?

[iNow]

Does not marriage STILL provide the majority of procreation by our species ?

No, it does not. Marriage is at best peripheral to the act of procreation.

 

 

 

Does this mean couples known to be infertile should not be provided the benefits of a marriage? Should couples who choose not to have children be prosecuted for tax fraud?

Of course not. They just shouldn't be called marriages (that is, if we follow the logic of other posters here...according to them those are merely civil unions). Edited March 5, 2017 by iNow

[MigL]

Frankly, I couldn't care less what they call it.

But iNow asked for secular differences, and he was provided with them.

 

By definition, it takes a man and a woman to procreate, i.e. start a family. And that is the original intent of marriage.

Not to receive government subsidies/benefits.

 

As to infertile couples not being married, should sushi made from a supermarket be called differently, because its not made with fish that swim in the sea ? I would think that as long as it has fish in it, no matter the circumstances of the fish, it is sushi.

Similarly with marriage. As long as the required ingredients to procreate, a man and a woman, are there, it is a marriage.

 

If we also choose to call a gay union a marriage, I don't have a problem with that either.

It is, after all, just a definition.

 

edit ( sorry about my train of thought, I had sushi for lunch )

Edited March 5, 2017 by MigL

[CharonY]

Actually, sushi refers to the vinegar rice. A better question is what happens if someone sells fish without rice. The bigger issue though is the basis of legal definition, which does not include the requirement for procreation. For example there is no upper limit on age for marriage. Following the same logic one would need to find different name and legal basis for this case, too.

Edited March 5, 2017 by CharonY

[MigL]

Did not know that about the rice.

Thanks CharonY.

 

The point I was trying to make, though, is that even if its old dead fish in a supermarket, and no longer swims in the ocean, you can still make sushi.

But you can never make sushi out of chicken ( even if you put the chicken in water ).

 

( I'll stop now and go have some left-overs before I get carried away with this sushi thing )

Edited March 5, 2017 by MigL

[Alfred001]

 

 

You need to ask gay people but I suspect iNow echoes the view of many of those people; they want equality and using a different word for the same thing for a different group is not.

That's like saying girls are not equal to boys because we don't call them boys.

 

Biology is indeed a secular difference, but it is not relevant.

There is nothing relevant to the institution of marriage that people of opposite sex can do that people of same sex cannot. If you disagree, it would be useful for you to share what that relevant difference is.

The point, again, is that the people who are anti-gay marriage see marriage as a union of a man and a woman, which is what it has been for over 1000 years.

To their mind, and I appreciate that you don't see it that way, I don't either, but to their mind, calling a union between a same sex couple marriage is a desacration of marriage.

So, to you, the definition of marriage is a union between two people, to them its a union btw two people of opposite sex. So the question is, who gets to define what marraige is.

It seems to me that given that marriage has been one thing for over 1000 years the people who are saying, wait a minute, you can't all of a sudden change what this thing means have more of a leg to stand on.

Same sex couples can come up with a word of their own, but they can't culturally appropriate (hello!) something that was never theirs.

But MY question would be: Who cares?

Why does it matter that you call a union between opposite sex couples X and you call a union between same sex couples Y? Why is that something to get upset over? (again, we're working within the premise that they are afforded all the same legal rights)

 

Again, why not? That was my question to you and you've done little more than evade it.

Your lines appear arbitrary. Some groups surpass your "approved to marry" threshold while others do not. Please clarify why you draw the lines you do, why some groups like mixed races or people with different hair color are okay to marry but not people with similar genitals.

Please clarify: why it is okay for mixed races to marry, but not same sex couples?

You seem to not have understood what my argument is. My argument is that the definition of marriage is a union btw a man and a woman. That's why the argument doesn't apply to people of mixed race or certain hair color etc.

 

Yes, and black people have "traditionally" been defined as 3/5ths of a person ineligible to vote, women have "traditionally" been defined as property themselves traded through marriage for livestock and land and to settle debts.

So what?

"It's always been this way" does not a good or convincing argument make. Are you able to make a better one?

So what is that that matters to some people. Could the definition of marriage be changed? Sure. But to some people the definition of marriage matters.

Why? I don't know, it doesn't matter to me, but I recognize that it matters to others and I respect that.

 

Apparently, YOU DO. You know... Not to put too fine a point on it or anything...

It's disingenuous in the extreme to suggest that the label is irrelevant and to then use that assertion as the base of your entire position that it should be labeled something else.

If it truly doesn't matter "what the thing is called," then we seem to agree that we should just call it marriage.

If labels matter, then you can understand why some people want to apply the label "marriage" only to a union of a man and a woman.

 

To emphasize that, if there are two legal constructs that are identical, why would one give them two different names? Or why would one do that to highlight a factor that is legally inconsequential?

They are not identical. One applies to same sex couples, other opposite sex.

Why one would do that? Because some people care about tradition and see the application of this name to a same sex couple union as a perversion of something they care about.

 

No, they do. The people who feel they are being discriminated against. (And, although I don't know the details, I'm not sure that marriage and civil partnerships have identical legal rights.)

My point is, its not second rate in any way other than that someone says it is. (remember, we're operating under the premise of a civil partnership having all the same rights)

 

Apparently, a lot of people care. Bot the homosexual couples who wanted a marriage rather than a civil partnership and the heterosexual couples who want a civil partnership rather than a marriage.

My question is why do the SS couples care? Its a label that was never applied to SS unions, why do they want it applied to them.

I'm with you all the way on them having to have the same legal rights, but what claim do they have on a label that's never been applied to them?

It's like me who's not an American insisting that Americans must refer to me as an American.