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.

Also, the Constitution does not state a separation of Morals and State. The rule of law is at its heart about Morals. Which is tricky as morals tend to be loosely interpreted. Is it okay to kill someone? Not by our morals. But head-hunters had no such qualms. So in the absence of morality, there can be no law.

Actually the Constitution doesn't say anything about a separation of church and state either...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

1. no state religion
2. no interference with religion

in essence protection of religion FROM the state.

to Frazzled:
So basically if a couple is married under an ordained minister (or similar marriage maker) the state should have to accept it with equal legal validity as a hetro-couple since otherwise the exercise of that minister's religion is being prohibited via the state.
Correct?

No, but only because the the ordained minister has to follow the law in that state for who may be married and when.

Remember marriage is religious but its also a contractual & property right (the older use for). Hence the state involvement. Now you see why the state should not be involved...

Let the state determine legal contractual rights and let the religions choose who they will permit to "marry."

Frazzled is smarter than I. He wins.

So what is the line of the law specifically?
If a couple declares themselves married, is this an offense? What would be the punishment?
If other individuals honor that 'marriage' by treating them as such. What would be the punishment for that?
(example, a family rate at a local restaurant or hotel.)

Edit: typo

I have no problem with your scenario, Belphegor.
Your first question is answered that they are not breaking the law with their declaration, as they are not really married.

However, in the second question, if that same couple insisted that I treat them as such, then I have a problem.

Actually in many states, by making that declaration, they are legally married at that point, and thus screwed...

to Gen. Lee Losing:
If their marriage was sanctioned by the state would you treat them as such?
If your community treated them as married, but the state did not legally dignify their union would you take offense to a couple's 'insistence'?

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
You are very right! But the problem with opening this 'Pandora's box' is that the age of consent is an arbitrary moral. What is the 'legal water' about the magical age of 18? 17years and 364 days old is illegal. Add a day and it is A-Okay!

But it isn't a religiously motivated model. Aesthetic arguments are perfectly acceptable with respect to legislation, so long as they do not turn on God, or any equally circular mode of argumentation.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
What is the legal justification to stop polygamy? If the persons are consenting adults? We can bring up thoughts to support all of these moral rulings, but in the end it comes down to Morals. Right and wrong (viewed thru the democratic process of majority rules).

Polygamy is quite easy in that the traditional form of it necessarily requires an unequal application of rights. Essentially, men can marry more than one woman, but women can not marry more than one man. There are also further considerations with respect to the division of property, partial divorces (1 person leaving a 3 person union), and child rights. It certainly comes down to morals, but being able to substantiate your morals with evidence is what makes them legitimate.

Frazzled wrote:Actually the Constitution doesn't say anything about a separation of church and state either...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

1. no state religion
2. no interference with religion

in essence protection of religion FROM the state.

Which is absolutely tacit to the separation of church and state. After all, if the state entertains a religious line of argumentation it is interfering in the practice of all other religions by sanctioning the practices of one of them.

Belphegor wrote:to Gen. Lee Losing:
If their marriage was sanctioned by the state would you treat them as such?
If your community treated them as married, but the state did not legally dignify their union would you take offense to a couple's 'insistence'?

If the government sanctioned their marriage, I would treat them like a married couple. Honestly. All my argument was trying to show holes in the "big debate".

If my community were to treat any alternate life style as married, I would not treat them as married. Because they are not. I would still be respectful and even friendly. But I would not give them a discount on the Honey-Moon suite, or the family rate at the buffet.

dogma wrote:

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
You are very right! But the problem with opening this 'Pandora's box' is that the age of consent is an arbitrary moral. What is the 'legal water' about the magical age of 18? 17years and 364 days old is illegal. Add a day and it is A-Okay!

But it isn't a religiously motivated model. Aesthetic arguments are perfectly acceptable with respect to legislation, so long as they do not turn on God, or any equally circular mode of argumentation.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
What is the legal justification to stop polygamy? If the persons are consenting adults? We can bring up thoughts to support all of these moral rulings, but in the end it comes down to Morals. Right and wrong (viewed thru the democratic process of majority rules).

Polygamy is quite easy in that the traditional form of it necessarily requires an unequal application of rights. Essentially, men can marry more than one woman, but women can not marry more than one man. There are also further considerations with respect to the division of property, partial divorces (1 person leaving a 3 person union), and child rights. It certainly comes down to morals, but being able to substantiate your morals with evidence is what makes them legitimate.

Answer 1: The argument did not include God/religion. Even in ancient Greece, when homosexuality was accepted and even encouraged, marriage was between a man and woman. So historic precedence of a society accepting homosexuality but respecting heterosexual marriage.

Answer 2: The traditional form of polygamy is again the most "natural" model of marriage once 'religion' is out of the way. In nature, most mammals have a dominate male that is the sole breeder with a herd/troop/school/pride/etc. of females. So if we are using the 'natural' argument, polygamy has a better footing than homosexuality.

dogma wrote:

Which is absolutely tacit to the separation of church and state. After all, if the state entertains a religious line of argumentation it is interfering in the practice of all other religions by sanctioning the practices of one of them.

By that line of thinking, since Christians believe "Thou shalt not kill" and the government agrees, they are interfering with religions that make use of human sacrifice. Is it wrong to kill people? I think so! But that is my Morals. Others are free to disagree.

Slightly off topic:
   If both parties are in consent human, one human should be able to kill another. (terminally ill and such)
   Murder (purposeful killing without consent) is an issue because it takes the rights away from another human.

Oh, because no one brought this up from what I scanned:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo
also same sex long term mates are found in many vertebrates (but normal in a minority of each)
go go penguin power

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
Answer 1: The argument did not include God/religion. Even in ancient Greece, when homosexuality was accepted and even encouraged, marriage was between a man and woman. So historic precedence of a society accepting homosexuality but respecting heterosexual marriage.

Of course in those days marriage was a matter of reproduction and little else as women were forbidden from owning property, and children were raised communally. In the modern age marriage has little to do with reproduction as an act, and quite a bit to do with human affection and property. So the analogy is a false one.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
Answer 2: The traditional form of polygamy is again the most "natural" model of marriage once 'religion' is out of the way. In nature, most mammals have a dominate male that is the sole breeder with a herd/troop/school/pride/etc. of females. So if we are using the 'natural' argument, polygamy has a better footing than homosexuality.

But polygamy is not a ubiquitous alternative to breeding pairs. Indeed, the tendency varies considerably from species to species, and so to regard non-humans as evidence for possible human practice isn't terribly relevant. Moreover, there are plenty of animals with homosexual tendencies including certain penguins, and Bonobos. Moreover, it isn't logically defensible to utilize examples from the animal kingdom when humans are widely viewed as exceptions with respect to that classification.

YUCK!
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo about those above mentioned Bonobos.

"Sexual activity happens within the immediate family as well as outside it,"

I hope noone uses this to support homosexual marriage!

Nope, just throwing them in as little factoid to show the general illegitimate claims of "nature" driven laws.

That, and their just an interesting closely related species.

dogma wrote:


Of course in those days marriage was a matter of reproduction and little else as women were forbidden from owning property, and children were raised communally. In the modern age marriage has little to do with reproduction as an act, and quite a bit to do with human affection and property. So the analogy is a false one.


But polygamy is not a ubiquitous alternative to breeding pairs. Indeed, the tendency varies considerably from species to species, and so to regard non-humans as evidence for possible human practice isn't terribly relevant. Moreover, there are plenty of animals with homosexual tendencies including certain penguins, and Bonobos. Moreover, it isn't logically defensible to utilize examples from the animal kingdom when humans are widely viewed as exceptions with respect to that classification.

1 - I will look into the 'women forbidden to own property" thing. I thought Sparta was full of woman ownerships. But as to your point that the purpose of marriage has changed, that is your opinion. 52% of California disagreed.

2- You are right. Humans are not animals. But if I were to categorize the sexual habits of our species, I would say that we are heterosexual with a tendency for abnormalities.

Belphegor wrote:Nope, just throwing them in as little factoid to show the general illegitimate claims of "nature" driven laws.

That, and their just an interesting closely related species.

Okay. Thank you! ( I dont want anyone to think I was 'bashing' )

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:I also want to make it clear, I am NOT an advocate for destroying children! I am just trying debate logic.

If you are trying to debate logic, you may want to stop using logical fallacies. You know, like slippery slope.

In order for you to say that gay marriage will lead to pedophilia and bestiality marriage you have to show WHY that is the case, not just say it is so. So you have to show how two adults getting married will lead to an adult and a child being allowed to marry or a man and a horse will be allowed to marry. Otherwise, you are committing the Slipper Slope fallacy. Go on now, show us in a logical argument how those will happen.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Ozymandias wrote:
If you are trying to debate logic, you may want to stop using logical fallacies. You know, like slippery slope.

In order for you to say that gay marriage will lead to pedophilia and bestiality marriage you have to show WHY that is the case, not just say it is so. So you have to show how two adults getting married will lead to an adult and a child being allowed to marry or a man and a horse will be allowed to marry. Otherwise, you are committing the Slipper Slope fallacy. Go on now, show us in a logical argument how those will happen.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Because the legal argument uses the same tools. That is the whole point of my posts. Not to say "You are wrong" but to say "the argument is flawed". Gay marriage is not a bomb that will blow up America! But the argument that "it is natural" applies to pedophiles too. The argument that it is "only one law in the way" of gay marriage applies to pedophiles too. The argument that "Love is all you need" applies to pedophiles too. It is the flawed arguments that I am combating.

That's silly. Then we shouldn't have any marriage because love between a man and a woman is "natural" too.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

I believe (as I stated WAY earlier) that marriage should be de-legalized.

And I agree that's an ideal solution. However, I think it's unlikely. If we can't grant the word to a minority, we'll never be able to take away the word from the majority.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Ozymandias wrote:That's silly. Then we shouldn't have any marriage because love between a man and a woman is "natural" too.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

In the absence of morals, we rely on history and public opinion. Both sided with heterosexual marriage laws.

Ozymandias wrote:And I agree that's an ideal solution. However, I think it's unlikely. If we can't grant the word to a minority, we'll never be able to take away the word from the majority.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

I see you live in CA like me. What rights are in marriage in CA that are not in Civil Unions? I am honestly curious.

Sexual intercourse plays a major role in Bonobo society, being used as a greeting, a means of conflict resolution, and post-conflict reconciliation.

"Hey."

"Hey."

"Malfred."

"Ozymandias."

[Five minutes later]

"That was good. On to the game?"

"Of course! What do you want this hill to be?"

"Let's roll off for it."

[Five minutes later]

"Hrm. Okay. You win. Clear terrain it is. Let's play?"

"Sure."

[Two hours later]

"Good game. No hard feelings man?"

"Let's see."

[Five minutes later]

"Nah."

So you are saying that homosexuality is immoral? Strange, my gay uncle is a hell of a lot more moral than just about anyone I know. He and his partner have been together 20 years. I've been with my wife 2 months. Which is the stronger relationship?

Also, History and Public Opinion allowed for slavery once upon a time.

We can do this dance all day.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Wait, slavery isn't allowed anymore?

Crap.