This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
California Ban on Gay Marriage deemed unconstitutional - overturned
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
So I guess we agree (I'm referring to my final paragraph)? I'm not seeing where there is any justification against gay marriage in the "secular marriage" that you defined (so long as you allow for adoption, as you mentioned in the final paragraph). I guess my question is, do you think that two men should be allowed to form the same legal contract as a man and a woman currently can? I'm having trouble finding the answer in your words so far.
Why do two men want to get married?
They love each other? Emotional. Not government jurisdiction.
They want social recognition? Social. Not government jurisdiction.
Their religion requires it? Religious. Not government jurisdiction.
They want to adopt a kid together?
That
is government jurisdiction.
Apply that same logic to every other possible combination.
What isn't there to find in my words? Government has no jurisdiction in those areas.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
124027
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
What's the difference?
Apply that same logic to every other possible combination.
Up to your usual I'm-not-going-to-read-your-post shenanigans?
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
So therefore you would agree with the over turning of the Bill because it (the Bill) tried to use the governments influence in an area where it had no jurisdiction?
It's a little more complicated than that. The entire civil marriage systems as it stands goes beyond what the government's jurisdiction should be.
Post by
Heckler
That's exactly what I'm asking though. In your opinion, what should legal civil marriage be? If it should exclude homosexuals, why should it? For example, if it
is
the government's jurisdiction to decide who gets to adopt kids, should homosexuals be excluded, and if so, why?
I'm not trying to argue anything you said at this point, I'm just trying to understand it.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
That's exactly what I'm asking though. In your opinion, what should legal civil marriage be? If it should exclude homosexuals, why should it? For example, if it is the government's decision who gets to adopt kids, should homosexuals be excluded, and if so, why?
I'm not trying to argue anything you said at this point, I'm just trying to understand it.
It has absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality. So, I don't understand where your questions are coming from. "Civil marriage" for lack of a better term exists solely for the child. It exists from the moment the child becomes a member of the family (conception, adoption, whatever), and lasts until the child becomes a legal adult. This is the case regardless of what sex the parents are, whether they are fertile or not, or any other such irrelevant circumstances.
Any other union between the parents is beyond government jurisdiction. Said parents might also be married in the Baptist Church. It's irrelevant to what the government is concerned with.
Post by
124027
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Any other union between the parents is beyond government jurisdiction. Said parents might also be married in the Baptist Church. It's irrelevant to what the government is concerned with.
You're arguing a hypothetical "should be" there rather than arguing the situation as it is. Fact is the government has created certain rights, such as tax breaks and the (far more important in my opinion) rights to spouse access in hospitals and inheritance, to be only accessible easily by people in a married state. Homosexual couples would like these rights. Whether or not you agree with marriage as an institution has no relevance to the actual issues being presented.
I would like 100 million in government bailout too! Does that make the bailouts right? You can't just assume that the system is right.
And inheritance, power of attorney, and any other benefit that falls into what you listed all exist beyond just marriage. It's a matter of fact that most of the time those things are indeed given to the spouse, but that doesn't all of a sudden make it marriage. If you want to give your significant other power of atorney, then do it like everyone else...sign the power of attorney document.
Post by
124027
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Any other union between the parents is beyond government jurisdiction. Said parents might also be married in the Baptist Church. It's irrelevant to what the government is concerned with.
You're arguing a hypothetical "should be" there rather than arguing the situation as it is. Fact is the government has created certain rights, such as tax breaks and the (far more important in my opinion) rights to spouse access in hospitals and inheritance, to be only accessible easily by people in a married state. Homosexual couples would like these rights. Whether or not you agree with marriage as an institution has no relevance to the actual issues being presented.
I would like 100 million in government bailout too! Does that make the bailouts right? You can't just assume that the system is right.
What? Seriously your response makes no sense.
Your argument is that because heterosexual couples get certain things, that homosexual couples should get them too. That's a retarded argument, illustrated by my retarded argument about getting free money.
Post by
124027
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
You're thinking about this backwards. The main argument of the National debate is that people want to be able to get these right. They, really, really, don't care about the ceremony of marriage (I won't speak for everyone, but this is definitely the tone that is generated). Why else would people accept a government granted civil partnership over a religion granted marriage?
Who said anything about accepting something over something else?
You're either not reading my arguments, or you don't understand them.
Why should the presence of a chromosome define what a person can or cannot do?
It doesn't and if you'd actually read my posts, you'd see me say that quite clearly.
I see this thread is following the regular pattern:
OMG HsR's posting in this thread. He must have some radically wrong ideas, so I won't bother reading them. I should argue with him!
Oh wait, he's arguing for the same thing I am.
Post by
124027
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Heckler
OMG HsR's posting in this thread. He must have some radically wrong ideas, so I won't bother reading them. I should argue with him!
Oh wait, he's arguing for the same thing I am.
I'm probably guilty of this, but looking back, my post seems to agree with you as well (the only thing I disagreed with was that you think government should have no jurisdiction in social, emotional, or religious stuff -- I tend to think that it is a vital part of the Government's role to promote social welfare -- but this is an ideological disagreement that has little to do with the current discussion).
In the specific context of this discussion, I said that the entire idea of marriage seems flawed, and that if it were proper in terms of government jurisdiction, homosexuality wouldn't have anything to do with the discussion -- this largely agrees with your postings. Your response was to say "I made no sense."
Maybe you should take your own advice; if I try to come up with a hyperbolic description to generalize your thread behavior, maybe it would go:
OMG someone replied to my monologue! They must be disagreeing with me and trying to make me look crazy (there's no other reason to respond, after all)! I should argue with him!
Oh wait, he's arguing for the same thing I am.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
The main premise of your argument was that the government is going into social areas where they have no business being. I point out that, while your argument might be valid, it's not being applied.
What does "...no being applied" even mean? The entire point of the "gay marriage ban" and its overturn is to try to fix things that are wrong with the system. I'm saying, you can't "fix" something that is shouldn't exist in the first place. No matter what you do, you'll still have problems, because government
shouldn't
be messing with these things.
Either we stop associating rights with any form of a union between two people (which by the sound of it you would want). Or we create a new form of union with these rights associated.
And now what does "associating rights" even mean. Either an right exists or it doesn't. Married couples don't have any more or less rights than singles. Billy has the right to turn over his power of attorney to Jill no matter what.
Oh and by the same token I could just as easily say you should double check your method of self expression if i'm failing to understand something.
I'm not the one arguing against a strawman. So, no, in fact, you couldn't. I've stated my position and defended it. That's it.
Maybe you should take your own advice; if I try to come up with a hyperbolic description to generalize your thread behavior, maybe it would go:
OMG someone replied to my monologue! They must be disagreeing with me and trying to make me look crazy (there's no other reason to respond, after all)! I should argue with him!
Oh wait, he's arguing for the same thing I am.
If you attack one of my arguments, I'm going to defend it. If that attack was the result of bad reading on your part, my defense is just as valid.
Anyways, I've made my point. Still got jet lag, so bedtime for me.
Post by
Squishalot
...
Good to have you back / around. Busy recently?
The "religious" meaning has been around for a couple thousand years. It is based around religious, social, and emotional considerations. I use the term religious, because that is what is generally thrown around, but it encompasses more than that.
Indeed, and this forms the center of MyTie's argument (and many other Christians, with no implications about the degree of support), that the definition of marriage is a religious one, and that society has taken it and bastardised it.
The secular meaning is relatively recent, and it really comes down to a single consideration: children. It's a contract arrangement that exists to support a family (specifically the children) until they have grown.
So, in short what should this mean? Private religious or social organizations should provide the former, while the government provides the latter. If two gays want to get married, they need to find an organization to recognize them (or if they don't care about recognition, to just marry themselves). If they want to adopt, or have kids in any other way, they need government recognition.
Using a "what-is" argument against my "should-be" argument makes no sense.
I find this point quite amusing (in a 'HSR, I think you've shot yourself in the foot' sense). You're constructing a 'should-be' argument from a 'what is' argument, and using your 'should-be' argument to knock down any new 'what is' arguments.
1) In your 'should-be' argument, you have defined the secular definition of marriage as a child-production contract arrangement. As a result, your should-be argument is validly under scrutiny by any argument that challenges the validity of your secular definition of marriage, as Heckler did.
2) The production and protection of children is, by definition, a social aspect, and therefore, should fall under the private religious / social organisations, by your argument. Why should the government be involved in the regulation of the production of children? Should it be capable of banning particular groups of people from reproducing? At a guess, that would go against your general beliefs, but it becomes a logical conclusion of your argument.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
1) In your 'should-be' argument, you have defined the secular definition of marriage as a child-production contract arrangement. As a result, your should-be argument is validly under scrutiny by any argument that challenges the validity of your secular definition of marriage, as Heckler did.
You can't argue definitions like that. I'm defining 'religious marriage' a certain way, and secular marriage a certain way. You might think that there are better ways labeling and/or dividing the reality, but that doesn't make my definitions
wrong
. The only valid argument would be to argue against my 'should-be,' i.e. you might argue that you don't think government should be involved in child-rearing (which you did).
2) The production and protection of children is, by definition, a social aspect, and therefore, should fall under the private religious / social organisations, by your argument. Why should the government be involved in the regulation of the production of children? Should it be capable of banning particular groups of people from reproducing? At a guess, that would go against your general beliefs, but it becomes a logical conclusion of your argument.
There are social aspects to raising a child, yes. But that's not what the government is concerned with. There government is there to make sure that the child's rights are protected. Through a secular marriage contract (or a single's contract for that matter, if it's a single parent), the parent\ agree to do certain things to protect and support the child (feed, cloth, educate, etc.)...i.e. fulfill and protect the child's rights until he can do so for himself. The social aspects of raising the child remain outside the government's jurisdiction.
Post by
Squishalot
You can't argue definitions like that. I'm defining 'religious marriage' a certain way, and secular marriage a certain way. You might think that there are better ways labeling and/or dividing the reality, but that doesn't make my definitions wrong. The only valid argument would be to argue against my 'should-be,' i.e. you might argue that you don't think government should be involved in child-rearing (which you did).
Sortof. It's reasonable to argue definitions if your goal is to come to a commonly agreed position. It's only 'not wrong' if you're happy to agree to disagree. For example, it is perfectly reasonable for lawmakers to argue about definitions.
There government is there to make sure that the child's rights are protected. Through a secular marriage contract (or a single's contract for that matter, if it's a single parent), the parent(s) agree to do certain things to protect and support the child (feed, cloth, educate, etc.)...i.e. fulfill and protect the child's rights until he can do so for himself.
At no point is there such a contract. Any obligation for the parent to perform such actions are social obligations, as they are entitled dump a baby at a hospital and rid themselves of the so-called 'contract' without government penalty.
Certainly, the government is there to ensure that the child's rights are protected, but they exist through the government's existing jurisdiction, and not through the construct of secular marriage. You suggest as much yourself by identifying a circumstance where a single (willing) parent is also required to protect and support the child. In that respect, the requirement to protect and support the child falls under laws not relating to secular marriage, so there is no need to define it in that manner.
Post by
MyTie
MyTie, you can get married outside of a church, many people do, and since marriage is recognized by law (the government), they can restrict, or not restrict, whuat they view as marriage.
The church is not a building. Also governments ability to recognize something should not automatically give precedent to regulate.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.
