Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

You'd have a better argument if goverrnment was out of the marriage business altogether, and just had a "significant other agreement" giving rights/obligations under the law to whomever. Only legally competetnt adults could enter into the agreement. It would then be up to the person's religion/themselves to choose whether they were "married" or not.

After all marriage pre-existed government by likely thousands of years. Government is the newcomer horning in on marriage's turf...

Yea, I'm a big proponent of just taking marriage out of the legal lexicon altogether. You can get married in a church if you want, but it doesn't take on legal weight until you apply for a 'civil union'. Such civil unions can be made with anyone, even people you're related to, but only one person at a time. That way it is a declaration of co-dependence, as opposed to romantic intent. And, as a bonus, it would give married couples a larger range of options in terms of how their taxes are collected.

Marriage as a contractual arrangement between men and women has been around for a very long time and as with any other contract requires legal authority to give it effectiveness. Thus it is in the arena of government regulation.

Conversely, marriage in the modern Christian sense is a relatively modern development having only been formalised in the early Renaissance period.

Of course these are merely definitions of marriage and can be adjusted to suit requirements. I see nothing wrong with a civil union contract which the partners in can consecrate by the religion of their choice. This is in effect what happens in the UK. All legal marriages must be conducted in Registry Offices. There is little or no difference between the current Civil Union ("Gay Marriage") and a heterosexual marriage, except the name.

The UK government is considering granting marriage rights to people who aren't married but live together. This is because of the number of people who wrongly think you become legally married by living together for a certain amount of time, and are surprised to find they have no legal rights if they split up. This kind of non-marriage civil union of course would need to be registered, so we would have a third class of union, perhaps called the "Married in all but name civil partnership."

KK has a point.

It is only surprisingly recently that Marriage (in the West, dunno about the East) has been about personal feelings, rather than familial gain and that!

And why shouldn't same sex marriages be allowed? How does it affect someone who isn't in that situation? Oh yeah. It doesn't. At all. It nobodies business but the two people looking to make a lifelong commitment to each other.

dogma wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:you can't claim instinct as an excuse for rape.

Because rape is predatory. Moreover, why should they choose to be straight? What benefit does that have to society?

:S Society functions most smoothly when we are all cogs in the machine.

dogma wrote:What makes the requirement rational, as specifically opposed to any other requirement?

I dunno, how about several *thousands* of years of history and codified law that we use as the basis for our Judeo-Christian-Puritan society?

dogma wrote:Nah, that isn't what you said.

Let me repeat myself:

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Dogma wrote:a similar stigma comes with incest.

Nomoreso than inherent with homosexuality.

We are talking about stigma. If your argument is so weak that you need to insist I'm saying things I'm not, you have no argument.

dogma wrote:Yea, I'm gonna add something else.
...
that sounds an awful lot like bigotry to me.

Once again, the Liberal descends into name-calling to shut down debate.

Well done, and true to form.

____

Ozymandias wrote:This is one of the dumbest things I've ever seen from you. So when it was illegal for Blacks and Whites to marry, that wasn't an infringement on their civil rights because they were free to marry someone of the same race?

And don't start with the slippery slope arguments. Those are fallacies for a reason.

Unfortunately, it looks like the majority of California is as anti-gay as you are, Prop 8 seems to have passed.

The fact that you can't tell the difference between in-species "race" and cross-species gender reveals you to be far dumber.

What's amusing is practically every single slippery slope argument related to social mores has come to pass. When welfare was first proposed, supporters said "oh, no, nobody would ever *stay* on welfare". But lo and behold, some people did. When welfare expanded benefits per-child, supporters said "oh, no, nobody on welfare would ever have more children". But lo and behold, people did. So the very notion that we wouldn't end up legalizing polygamy, incest, bestiality, NAMBLA, etc. is a total lie. I'm actually shocked that you would suggest that the slipper slope is NOT a valid argument, given the wealth of evidence to the contrary. That you call facts "fallacies" is laughable.

You seem to have this grossly mistaken notion that creation of new rights makes people anti-gay. Newsflash: Gays don't need any special laws. They're no more special than you or I. They can just follow the same laws as everyone else, with the same protections as everyone else. Equal treatment under the law and all that jazz.

___

@dogma & Ozy:

You both seem to retreat to the standard Liberal argument that anybody who disagrees with you must be bigoted / homophobic / racist / sexist / X-ist in order to close "debate" and force your views on others.

If that is where you want to take the "discussion", I will give a very simple and eloquent rejoinder:

you

I'm outta here.

Haha, you called me a liberal. That's funny as I've been Republican and conservative my whole life. We called you bigoted because that's what you are (based on this and other posts I've read of yours). I have gays and lesbians in my life who I love and to deny them the right that my wife and I share is not only wrong, its shameful.

Ozymandias wrote:Haha, you called me a liberal. That's funny as I've been Republican and conservative my whole life. We called you bigoted because that's what you are (based on this and other posts I've read of yours). I have gays and lesbians in my life who I love and to deny them the right that my wife and I share is not only wrong, its shameful.

As do I. However, people can have a good faith disagreement on a proposition without being "bigots." Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them a bigot. I'm generally in agreement with you and Dogma on the merits but can understand the point of view of the other side, especially the slippery slope argument. I'm saddened that a conservative would act like a PC nazi instead of arguing a point on those merits.

If someone disagrees on a X-related issue, that doesn't make them anti-X or X-ist.

As a "debate" tactic, is is both shallow and shameful.

So you can be for group X's rights and at the same time want to limit those rights significantly over others yet still think that you should not be considered against X. That is a pretty fantastic contortion.

I don't think JohnHwangDD should be able to go to the movie theaters or restaraunts as his presence causes a moral problem for the community (he's an adult that plays with toys, what kind of message is that?). Now don't be confused, I am not against JohnHwangDD, I just don't think he should be allowed outside the house.

Again just because someone disagrees on a topic does not mean they are bigots, racists, whatever. Arguing such just means you can't argue your position.

The difference is DD, that a Heterosexual Person is attracted to members of the opposite sex, and is allowed to Marry them. They are unlikely to want to make a similar commitment to a member of the same sex, as they do not fancy them.

However, Homosexual persons, who are attracted to members of the same sex, are not allowed to Marry someone they love and are attracted to, but are allowed to Marry someone they don't fancy as they are a member of the opposite sex.

Who gets to make the distinction about what is right and wrong? Religion? Nah. Not in my book. Not with their history. Government? Well, seeing as they are the will of the people, and Democracy is about EVERYONE being represented, not just the majority....

I utterly fail to see how same sex marriages are in any way damaging to soceity. Seriously. What is so bad about that concept that it is NOT allowed? Of course, hundreds of years of Religious Dogma.

State and Religion really should be two very seperate entities.

Government is often not the will of the people however, but the will of a special interest or of a judge who's biase is being implemented (looks to the mayor of San Fran threatening to sue over 8 as we speak). If the majority votes for 8 and a judge sets it aside, its not the will of the people (or inversely if the voters set aside but judge re-instated).

8? I assume this is the Same-Sex Marriage issue being voted on yes?

If a Judge can prevent the will of the people from being carried out, then he should not be in such a position of power. No one should. Surely Government and Media should be there only to propose and explain the proposal, before following what they are damn well told to do by the people?

Government is also there to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. This is why we’re a Republic. If the majority makes an unjust decision, a good system of laws gives the minority the opportunity to contest it. The Fourteenth Amendment, for example.

If I (as a heterosexual) am allowed to marry the consenting adult of my choice (subject to incest restrictions), it is not equal or just to tell a homosexual person that they are only free to marry a person of the opposite sex. John, you are drawing a false equivalency.

You are putting your personal preference and way of happiness above the freedoms and happiness of others. Actually you’re going further than that. Your personal preference for marriage is already accorded the protection and recognition of the law; extending the same protection and recognition to homosexuals would not restrict your freedom or diminish your rights. It’s not a zero-sum game.

Whilst I am against incest and bestiality, I put the question what harm they would do to society.

The answers are fairly obvious.

Incest is bad because it leads to genetic diseases being inflicted on the offspring.

Bestiality is bad because it involves the persecution of animals for nothing more than personal pleasure.

I do not see how equal rights for homosexuals to marry would inevitably lead to incest and bestiality being legalised. Nor do I see how it is of itself detrimental to society.

I really think that DD is the last person who should be commenting on other people's debating styles and tactics...

BYE

JohnHwangDD wrote:
:S Society functions most smoothly when we are all cogs in the machine.

Yep, and societies which accommodate a greater variety of cogs are less susceptible to collapse. Inflexibility has always been the death knell of any social system.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
I dunno, how about several *thousands* of years of history and codified law that we use as the basis for our Judeo-Christian-Puritan society?

You mean the same thousands of years that included the Greeks, Romans, and Persians? All of whom were tolerant of homosexuality? Conflating Western history with Christian history is a classic fallacy of the anti-gay crowd.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Once again, the Liberal descends into name-calling to shut down debate.

Well done, and true to form.

What debate? All you've done is attempt to dress up your narrow world-view under logical pretense. You didn't even answer the questions I posed to you without defaulting to the idea that the West is inherently Judeo-Christian. Even if that were the case, and it most certainly isn't, what is the issue with adapting to new conditions?

Wait, don't answer, I'll do it for you. You refuse to adapt because you have an irrational fear of homosexuality. Otherwise why would you cling to your selective perception of our historical heritage? I'm not trying to be insulting, just enlightening.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
The fact that you can't tell the difference between in-species "race" and cross-species gender reveals you to be far dumber.

Tell me Johnny boy, what is the difference?

JohnHwangDD wrote:
What's amusing is practically every single slippery slope argument related to social mores has come to pass. When welfare was first proposed, supporters said "oh, no, nobody would ever *stay* on welfare". But lo and behold, some people did.

And many more of them elevated themselves out of poverty. Focusing on the negative will always yield a perception of failure. Also, this isn't a slippery slope argument.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
When welfare expanded benefits per-child, supporters said "oh, no, nobody on welfare would ever have more children". But lo and behold, people did.

Sure, some people do. Most people don't. Moreover, your ignoring a huge number of other factors ranging from prejudice to educational dysfunction. Again, that isn't a slippery slope argument.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
So the very notion that we wouldn't end up legalizing polygamy, incest, bestiality, NAMBLA, etc. is a total lie.

That isn't even comparable logic. The negative effects of welfare were tied directly to the passage of single bills. Each one of the persuasions you mention would have to be passed separately, from gay marriage bills or each other. This is a slippery slope argument, and it is fallacious.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
I'm actually shocked that you would suggest that the slipper slope is NOT a valid argument, given the wealth of evidence to the contrary. That you call facts "fallacies" is laughable.

Again, you haven't cited even a single example of a slippery slope proving correct. Hell, the fact that we aren't continuing the process of deregulation in the finance sector shows that slippery slopes are fallacious.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
You seem to have this grossly mistaken notion that creation of new rights makes people anti-gay. Newsflash: Gays don't need any special laws. They're no more special than you or I. They can just follow the same laws as everyone else, with the same protections as everyone else. Equal treatment under the law and all that jazz.

How would gays get special laws? If gay marriage were permitted you would have the right to marry a person of the same sex. Oh, but wait, you can't do that because you're hetero. :S

JohnHwangDD wrote:
@dogma & Ozy:

You both seem to retreat to the standard Liberal argument that anybody who disagrees with you must be bigoted / homophobic / racist / sexist / X-ist in order to close "debate" and force your views on others.

Nope, I'm not forcing anything. I'm pointing out that your 'views' can only be founded on rational thought if you buy into a specifically limiting mythos. A mythos that you feel is superior to all others, and can thus be justifiably foisted on the rest of us. That is the very definition of bigotry.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
If that is where you want to take the "discussion", I will give a very simple and eloquent rejoinder:

you

I'm outta here.

Yeah, that's usually what happens when unreflective people have their views challenged.

Mannahnin wrote:Government is also there to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. This is why we’re a Republic. If the majority makes an unjust decision, a good system of laws gives the minority the opportunity to contest it. The Fourteenth Amendment, for example.

Great, tell that to 1.37 million "fetuses" every year that are "destroyed" in the US. Sorry but rule of the vocal majority is the Law of the US and unfortunately, the unborn have no opportunity to contest that.

Oh, and values = religion => politics => law.

Why should only one side be free to politically express thier religious dogma in advocating those laws that adhere to thier beliefs?

dogma wrote: You mean the same thousands of years that included the Greeks, Romans, and Persians? All of whom were tolerant of homosexuality? Conflating Western history with Christian history is a classic fallacy of the anti-gay crowd.

Actually commonality with homosexuality in each of these cultures was primarily exhibbited in the ruling class and wealthy elite. It was not a commonly accepted practice amoungst the working class. This is also a common falacy associated with polygammy in which sides often point to a long running history of polygammy across cultures. However, again, polygammy was largely exhibbited only in the ruling class and the wealthy elite. It was not a common occurance amoungst the majority of the population that construed the working class.

wyomingfox wrote:Great, tell that to 1.37 million "fetuses" every year that are "destroyed" in the US. Sorry but rule of the vocal majority is the Law of the US and unfortunately, the unborn have no opportunity to contest that.

Fetuses aren't people, so they can't be a minority or a majority of anything. Rocks don't get much say either.

wyomingfox wrote:Oh, and values = religion

Values never has, and never will, be the same thing as religion. If that were the history of religion would be very different then it actually is. You can have one w/o the other, both, or neither.

wyomingfox wrote:religion => politics => law

That is the flow chart for Al Queda and doctor killers. Good company. If it was just three guys that agreed with you and one sheep looking longingly in to your eyes this might work, but it isn't that way. There are 300+ million Americans and if we use that flow chart then we'd all be dead already. A good deal of the world isn't a form of Christianity. Do you still want that flowchart if the first isn't Christianity? Or does that only work when you are in the immediate majority, like in the US.

wyomingfox wrote:Why should only one side be free to politically express thier religious dogma in advocating those laws that adhere to thier beliefs?

How dense. You make a statement that you aren't allowed to make statements. You are freely expressing yourself right now.

wyomingfox wrote:
Actually commonality with homosexuality in each of these cultures was primarily exhibbited in the ruling class and wealthy elite. It was not a commonly accepted practice amoungst the working class. This is also a common falacy associated with polygammy in which sides often point to a long running history of polygammy across cultures. However, again, polygammy was largely exhibbited only in the ruling class and the wealthy elite. It was not a common occurance amoungst the majority of the population that construed the working class.

Considering our only histories of the time were written by, and spoke only of, the ruling class. You'll pardon me if I don't believe you.

wyomingfox wrote:
Oh, and values = religion => politics => law.

Values do not equate to religion. If that were true you would expect each person in a given faith to have almost identical values. This has never been the case. Ask any of the Catholic congregations that broke from the church after Benedict was elevated.

Similarly, religion does not have to lead into politics. You may like to believe that modern secularism is the result of atheist control of the political system, but that simply isn't the case. Everyone is free to practice their religious beliefs so long as it does not impact the public good. It is a form of agnosticism, not atheism.

wyomingfox wrote:
Why should only one side be free to politically express thier religious dogma in advocating those laws that adhere to thier beliefs?

Because their 'religious dogma' is based on a fact oriented approach to life in which proof dictates the search for faith, and not the other way around. People can believe whatever they want, so long as that belief does not compel them to restrict the ability of others to do the same.

Edit: misquote

Ahtman wrote:

wyomingfox wrote:Great, tell that to 1.37 million "fetuses" every year that are "destroyed" in the US. Sorry but rule of the vocal majority is the Law of the US and unfortunately, the unborn have no opportunity to contest that.

Fetuses aren't people, so they can't be a minority or a majority of anything. Rocks don't get much say either.

Fetuses are legal definition of any unborn child. So lets see they are human, comprised of living cells, possess nueral activity, can feel pain...ect.

wyomingfox wrote:Oh, and values = religion

Values never has, and never will, be the same thing as religion. If that were the history of religion would be very different then it actually is. You can have one w/o the other, both, or neither.

Nice but not true: "religion refers to one's primary worldview and how this dictates one's thoughts and actions". What you expressed are values that predicate your own religious beliefs.

wyomingfox wrote:religion => politics => law

That is the flow chart for Al Queda and doctor killers. Good company. If it was just three guys that agreed with you and one sheep looking longingly in to your eyes this might work, but it isn't that way. There are 300+ million Americans and if we use that flow chart then we'd all be dead already. A good deal of the world isn't a form of Christianity. Do you still want that flowchart if the first isn't Christianity? Or does that only work when you are in the immediate majority, like in the US.

It is a Flow chart for Marxist, Socialists, Athiests, Muslims, Liberals, Conservatives, Gentiles, and Jews...and you. Doesn't matter that the majority of the world is or is not "that" religion. Seriously, where do you think laws come from. They are emposed values derived from a consensus of the majority which again is dictated by religious views. We would all be dead...funny... if the magority of religious views truely equaled kill all humans then you would be right...I am glad that you are wrong!

wyomingfox wrote:Why should only one side be free to politically express thier religious dogma in advocating those laws that adhere to thier beliefs?

How dense. You make a statement that you aren't allowed to make statements. You are freely expressing yourself right now.

Really, I think dense is one who has some notion that somehow ones religion can be divorced from politics and uses that arguement as a means to silence Theocons. The person who says this is clearly excersizing his religious beliefs to suppress the religious beliefs of others in the political realm.

If I use bold for everything instead of reason does that make a flawed argument better?

dogma wrote:

wyomingfox wrote:
Oh, and values = religion => politics => law.

Values do not equate to religion. If that were true you would expect each person in a given faith to have almost identical values. This has never been the case. Ask any of the Catholic congregations that broke from the church after Benedict was elevated.

Similarly, religion does not have to lead into politics. You may like to believe that modern secularism is the result of atheist control of the political system, but that simply isn't the case. Everyone is free to practice their religious beliefs so long as it does not impact the public good. It is a form of agnosticism, not atheism.

No I would expect each person to have slightly differnet values as each person has slightly differnet religious beliefs. Again " religion refers to one's primary worldview and how this dictates one's thoughts and actions".

wyomingfox wrote:
Why should only one side be free to politically express thier religious dogma in advocating those laws that adhere to thier beliefs?

Because their 'religious dogma' is based on a fact oriented approach to life in which proof dictates the search for faith, and not the other way around. People can believe whatever they want, so long as that belief does not compel them to restrict the ability of others to do the same.

Edit: misquote

Ahtman wrote:If I use bold for everything instead of reason does that make a flawed argument better?

In your case...no

Actually I wrote several responses throughout your paragraph and used bold so that people could distinguish what I wrote but go on...no wait, let me get my popcorn.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................OK now go on.

wyomingfox wrote:

Ahtman wrote:If I use bold for everything instead of reason does that make a flawed argument better?

In your case...no

It didn't work for yours either so I guess it shouldn't be used as a crutch, so please stop doing it.

wyomingfox wrote:Actually I used bold so that people could distinguish what I wrote but go on...no wait, let me get my popcorn.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................OK now go on.

Actually it seemed less like that and more like you have trouble using "quote" correctly like everyone else.

Now it's your turn again.

wyomingfox wrote:

dogma wrote:

wyomingfox wrote:
Oh, and values = religion => politics => law.

Values do not equate to religion. If that were true you would expect each person in a given faith to have almost identical values. This has never been the case. Ask any of the Catholic congregations that broke from the church after Benedict was elevated.

No I would expect each person to have slightly differnet values as each person has slightly differnet religious beliefs. Again " religion refers to one's primary worldview and how this dictates one's thoughts and actions".

Similarly, religion does not have to lead into politics. You may like to believe that modern secularism is the result of atheist control of the political system, but that simply isn't the case. Everyone is free to practice their religious beliefs so long as it does not impact the public good. It is a form of agnosticism, not atheism.

Actually since religion is one's primary worldview that dictates one's thoughts and actions...then yes religion always leads into politics. Modern secularists which is composed of many people with divers religious backgrounds is not only comprised by athiests but also muslim and christian secularists who have differnet religious views than other Christian and Muslim counterparts.

wyomingfox wrote:
Why should only one side be free to politically express thier religious dogma in advocating those laws that adhere to thier beliefs?

Because their 'religious dogma' is based on a fact oriented approach to life in which proof dictates the search for faith, and not the other way around. People can believe whatever they want, so long as that belief does not compel them to restrict the ability of others to do the same.

Edit: misquote

wyomingfox wrote:[Fetuses are legal definition of any unborn child. So lets see they are human, comprised of living cells, possess nueral activity, can feel pain...ect.

Are they human? Can you define human? What makes a human different from any other animal?

wyomingfox wrote:
Nice but not true: "religion refers to one's primary worldview and how this dictates one's thoughts and actions". What you expressed are values that predicate your own religious beliefs.

Religion refers to one's primary means of engaging with the possibility of the supernatural. In so far as the supernatural is simply that which is beyond current understanding. When that method of engagement begins to prevent the acquisition of new knowledge it is no longer religion, but delusion.

wyomingfox wrote:
It is a Flow chart for Marxist, Socialists, Athiests, Muslims, Liberals, Conservatives, Gentiles, and Jews...and you. Doesn't matter that the majority of the world is or is not "that" religion.

No, it really isn't. The fact that you keep returning to the point simply proves mine.

wyomingfox wrote:
Seriously, where do you think laws come from. They are emposed values derived from a consensus of the majority which again is dictated by religious views.

Sorry, no. Religion is an emergent property of the natural world. We derive it from experience as a way to make abstract predictions about the future. However, when you selectively manipulate experience, as the present tense of future, so as to affirm your religious conclusion you are exercising forced delusion. When this occurs on a societal level it is call oppression.

wyomingfox wrote:
We would all be dead...funny... if the magority of religious views truely equaled kill all humans then you would be right...I am glad that you are wrong!

Well, actually, majority of religious views feature some form of evangelism. This is frequently interpreted as a means of justifying coercive tactics, and legislative oppression. And it is only those religions which place themselves into the political sphere in any kind of significant sense.

wyomingfox wrote:
Really, I think dense is one who has some notion that somehow ones religion can be divorced from politics and uses that arguement as a means to silence Theocons. The person who says this is clearly excersizing his religious beliefs to suppress the religious beliefs of others in the political realm.

Nope. All such a person would be doing is pointing out that there is a distinct difference between restricting right, because you're religion calls for it, and permitting right, because your religion calls for it. Just because you have institutionalized bigotry does not make it more acceptable.

dogma wrote:

wyomingfox wrote:
Actually commonality with homosexuality in each of these cultures was primarily exhibbited in the ruling class and wealthy elite. It was not a commonly accepted practice amoungst the working class. This is also a common falacy associated with polygammy in which sides often point to a long running history of polygammy across cultures. However, again, polygammy was largely exhibbited only in the ruling class and the wealthy elite. It was not a common occurance amoungst the majority of the population that construed the working class.

Considering our only histories of the time were written by, and spoke only of, the ruling class. You'll pardon me if I don't believe you.

Feel free to believe and vote how you want.