Same Sex Marriage

In your post (#49) and your present post (#57) you did not answer at all --"yes" or "no" aside-- the question I posed regarding the first plank of the method I proposed that we use in our attempt to arrive at a conclusion regarding the homosexual marriage controversy. Please answer and follow that with whether you find the second plank reasonable.

I don't know what 'planks' you are talking about. I think you are confounding the issue. I have no interest in having to jump through hoops just to have you answer the simple cricisms of your argument that have been raised here. If you aren't willing to defend your argument then I'm not sure what you are doing on a philosophy forum.

[Scott]

You weren't talking about the voting booth when you committed what I believe is a false dilemma fallacy. Again, this is where you committed the false dilemma fallacy:

The controversy over homosexuality at present revolves politically around the following contradictories:

1. WE SHOULD ALL APPROVE OF HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE.

2. NONE OF US SHOULD APPROVE OF HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE.

That's a false dilemma [fallacy].

[Emphasis added.]

I'll take that as your being in agreement that I was not involved in a false dilemma fallacy --meaning that I failed to acknowledge an option-- regarding what was offered when we voted. If you don't agree, please let me know.

I'm sorry; perhaps you misread my post or something. I clearly quoted the part of text in which I believe you committed a false dilemma fallacy, clearly state that in that part of your post you have committed a false dilemma fallacy, and you take that as me saying you didn't commit a false dilemma fallacy; is that right? Now you are also committing a straw man fallacy (which is a type of red herring fallacy) by misinterpreting what I have said, so I am just trying to clear myself up to avoid this type of red herring fallacy.

As has been repeatedly explained to you, one can disapprove of an activity or type of contract without wanting to criminalize the activity or legally invalidate the contracts.

Here's where we're going to have to get into methodology.

[...]

We can continue with the rest of our exchange after we establish a flooring for our discussion

The methodology and flooring for discussion and debate on these forums is laid out in the forum rules, which is supplemented by the thread How to Have Productive Philosophical Conversations and my post The Four Main Elements of a Complete Logical Argument. I don't see why my proposition which you quoted--"One can disapprove of an activity or type of contract without wanting to criminalize the activity or legally invalidate the contracts."--requires us to go over such methodology here. You have provided no argument against the proposition, you haven't even stated that you disagree with the proposition, Pjkeely and I have both provided arguments in support of the proposition, and it seems pretty clear to me that the proposition is obviously true.

So as far as I can tell, you are committing another red herring fallacy instead of actually responding to my point, "One can disapprove of an activity or type of contract without wanting to criminalize the activity or legally invalidate the contracts."

Dear Scott,

In reply to your post of 6/1/10 (#62):

"I'm sorry; perhaps you misread my post or something. I clearly quoted the part of text in which I believe you committed a false dilemma fallacy, clearly state that in that part of your post you have committed a false dilemma fallacy, and you take that as me saying you didn't commit a false dilemma fallacy; is that right?"

Not quite. See below.

"The methodology and flooring for discussion and debate on these forums is laid out in the forum rules, which is supplemented by the thread How to Have Productive Philosophical Conversations and my post The Four Main Elements of a Complete Logical Argument."

I went over your "How To Have Productive Philosophical Conversations" and found especially interesting, in light of the problem I had with Pjkeely (and starting to have with you) is your point about asking questions. What's missing is pointing out the need to answer asked questions. I saw absolutely nothing about that. Why that striking imbalance?

But beyond that, is there a conflict between a) the forum rules and How to Have Productive Philosophical Conversations, on the one hand, and b) the first plank of the flooring that I suggest that we use on the other? I mean as things stand now, we have no agreed-on method for identifying acknowledging and discarding errors --errors that we know must exist. That just leads to quarreling. If we have such an agreed-on method, per the plank that I suggest that we use, the likelihood of an argument disintegrating into a quarrel is lessened. Make sense?

"So as far as I can tell, you are committing another red herring fallacy instead of actually responding to my point, 'One can disapprove of an activity or type of contract without wanting to criminalize the activity or legally invalidate the contracts.'"

In response, permit me to break that down.

A. What option, aside from the dilemma represented by my propositions 1 and 2 that you quote, have I failed to acknowledge?

B. How are you applying the word "criminalize"? To what crime are you referring?

C. Can two persons of the same sex not set up whatever contract they want that will give them the advantages of traditional marriage? Or can there not be changes in the law to provide them with those advantages?

Regards,

Jack

[Scott]

I went over your "How To Have Productive Philosophical Conversations" and [...]

I have copied and responding to the above paragraph in that thread.

I mean as things stand now, we have no agreed-on method for identifying acknowledging and discarding errors --errors that we know must exist.

I have copied the above paragraph into a new thread entitled 'Debate Methodology' and responding to it there (because I feel it is off-topic in this thread to have a long discussion about debate methodology).

The controversy over homosexuality at present revolves politically around the following contradictories:

1. WE SHOULD ALL APPROVE OF HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE.

2. NONE OF US SHOULD APPROVE OF HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE.

That's a false dilemma [fallacy].

What option, aside from the dilemma represented by my propositions 1 and 2 that you quote, have I failed to acknowledge?

Here's one other option: 3. Some of us will approve of homosexual marriage; some of us will disapprove of homosexual marriage; some of us will be apathetic about homosexual marriage. At the same time, homosexuals can enter into a valid civil marriage contract even though some people will disapprove.

One can disapprove of an activity or type of contract without wanting to criminalize the activity or legally invalidate the contracts.

B. How are you applying the word "criminalize"? To what crime are you referring?

I am referring to the crime of engaging in the disapproved activity--whatever it is--when it is outlawed. If we are talking simply about a contract (such as a certain type of mortgage contract, a marriage contract or an employment contract) 'criminalizing' it might just mean invalidating any attempted instance of that type of contract, forcefully stopping people from filing or completing such a contract, or even penalizing people who try to enter such a contract. For instance, people could vote to make it illegal for banks to charge interest rates on mortgages above X percent. Maybe this would just mean if you signed a mortgage contract with interest rates above X percent that it would not be considered valid; it could mean that you just wouldn't be able to find or file such a contract since its illegal (e.g. maybe it has to be motorized by a government official to be considered complete and the government official can't notarize it because it's an illegal contract); it could mean that if you and a bank signed a mortgage contract together with an interest rate above X percent that you and/or the bank could be fined or imprisoned. Exactly how the criminalized activity is prevented from occurring or penalized if it does occur varies. As far as contracts go (such as mortgage contracts, marriage contracts and employment contracts), 'criminalizing' it (a.k.a. invalidating it) usually stops it from occurring without the need of any other enforcement since the main point of filling out contracts is for government recognition and enforcement so once its illegal/invalid it doesn't happen.

Can two persons of the same sex not set up whatever contract they want that will give them the advantages of traditional marriage? Or can there not be changes in the law to provide them with those advantages?

That's exactly the topic of this thread. We are debating whether or not to let consenting adults of the same gender enter into so-called 'marriage' contracts (not ceremonial marriages). In any society that has a truly free market, any two people regardless of whether they are the same gender or not can indeed setup whatever type of contract they want with whatever stipulations they want as long as all parties involved are consenting. However, many countries currently do not allow that economic freedom. While in some countries homosexuals may be able to enter into most other contracts such as mortgage contracts or employment contracts, the law disallows them from entering into the type of civil contracts commonly known as marriage contracts (but sometimes called something else like 'civil union' contracts). This could mean that if two people of the same gender sign that type of contract that they will be criminally penalized. It could just mean that if two people of the same gender try to get the paperwork to file such a contract as is required by other law that the law will require them to be refused or for any application or filing to be rejected. It could mean that criminal penalties such as fines or imprisonment will be imposed on anyone who enters such a contract. (In some countries, it is even illegal to be homosexual at all, and being openly homosexual is penalized by execution. But that more extreme homophobia is not the topic of this thread.) I support the free market approach, allowing any two consenting adults to enter into the type of contract often known as a marriage contract regardless of their gender, race, religion or ethnicity. In fact, I even made a thread to a more general goal that proposes constitutionally banning the government from knowing discriminatory information such as gender, race, religion, eye-color, etc. at all so that among other limitations on potential discrimination it would be impossible for the government to declare contracts invalid based on the gender, race, religion or eye color of the parties of the contract.

With all that said, I would also support a law change that stops a government from using the word 'marriage' to officially label any contract it considers valid. I suggest using an alternative phrase such as 'civil union' so that all such contracts the currently be called 'marriages' would be known as 'civil unions' regardless of whether it was between a man and a woman, two men or two women. I think this would help avoid some of the confusion of people mixing up civil "marriage" (which is a legal contract with extensive legal ramifications regarding things like inheritance, tax filing, bank account access, hospital visiting policies, insurance polices, etc.) with ceremonial/religious marriage (which has no legal bearing and is out of the jurisdiction of any government with a free exercise constitutional clause).

Dear Scott,

In reply to your post of 6/3/10 (#64):

Jackowens wrote: I went over your "How To Have Productive Philosophical Conversations" and [...]

"I have copied and responding to the above paragraph in that thread."

Does what you've written in that thread mean that you're going to anwer the first of the two questions in my post #78 on the "Homosexual lifestyle immoral" thread?

"Here's one other option: 3. Some of us will approve of homosexual marriage; some of us will disapprove of homosexual marriage; some of us will be apathetic about homosexual marriage. At the same time, homosexuals can enter into a valid civil marriage contract even though some people will disapprove."

Alright. I acknowledge that your #3, as in the case of my numbers 1 and 2, is a point the truth/falsity of which we can discuss.

Does that absolve me from being guilty of being involved in a false dilemma fallacy?

"Jackowens wrote: B. How are you applying the word "criminalize"? To what crime are you referring?

"I am referring to the crime of engaging in the disapproved activity--whatever it is--when it is outlawed."

But, again, homosexual and bestial marriages are not outlawed. I suppose they could be and are in some countries, but they're not here. What I'm saying is that such marriages have not been criminalized; they just haven't been institutionalized.

Why do you continue to use "crime" and "criminalized?

"I suggest using an alternative phrase such as 'civil union' so that all such contracts the currently be called 'marriages' would be known as 'civil unions' regardless of whether it was between a man and a woman, two men or two women."

I'm confused.

I thought that civil unions were available to same-sex couples or that legislation could be enacted to to make them so.

It sounds to me like you may not be facing the controversy as it exists: Gay Liberation ideologues don't just want civil unions; they want any and all distinctions --to the extent possible-- erased between heterosexual and homosexual marriages. In other words, homosexual marriages are not approved of because, on a secular basis, the majority of the citizenry considers homosexuality a sexual perversion (more precisely a misdirection of the reproductive drive). For Gay Liberation ideologues, such a belief is intolerable and must be expunged from all minds so that homosexual marriages can be institutionalized, called marriages and put on as complete a par as possible with heterosexual ones.

A step in that direction is to repeal Proposition 8. That takes us back to try to clarify and nail down your position.

1. Do you think that Propostion 8 should be repealed?

2. Do you think that we should approve of homosexual marriages, institutionalizing them on a par with heterosexual ones?

My answer is "no" to both questions.

If you think I've missed anything you think important, catch me the next time around.

Regards,

Jack

There was a comment explaining how people who vote against same sex marriage will become left in the dust just like Womens rights. I have wondered about this for a very long time. Each and every person ultimately knows that the current foundations that we have of liberal rights ends up winning in the long run. Is this some kind of progression into a singular direction? What exactly is allowing this to happen? What is creating a fluid liberal movement. Carl Marx and other people have pointed this out in economic terms. (i'm excluding myself from Marx but i'm bring it into this for reference). I would end up voting a yes on same sex couples but in this state of mind it brings up reconditioning of marriage. Marriage itself has changed properties greatly where now all individuals are capable to live on their own. The legal terms and the contract are now becoming more of a past ritual hassel. What is the actual reason people want to get married? Is a term that we use to signify that we are more serious with each other. If its only a term there can be a condition or a contract to share bank accounts and tax forms seperate from marriage. I'm just very curious to how this world progresses in one direction and people no matter what will assume the past is right over the future.

Each and every person ultimately knows that the current foundations that we have of liberal rights ends up winning in the long run. Is this some kind of progression into a singular direction? What exactly is allowing this to happen?

I don't think it's a singular direction necessarily, we could go 'backwards' to some degree there are times when it's wise. Or go a completely different direction.

Generalizing: What allows this to happen is the will of the majority of people. How definite the change is how many believe in it. How fast it happens depends on how deeply they believe in it.

What is the actual reason people want to get married? Is a term that we use to signify that we are more serious with each other.

In essence it is the most serious a couple(or in some cases groups) could be, symbolically.

[Scott]

I acknowledge that your #3, as in the case of my numbers 1 and 2, is a point the truth/falsity of which we can discuss.

Does that absolve me from being guilty of being involved in a false dilemma fallacy?

It absolves you in the sense that you had committed a false dilemma, you are admitting it and now you will hopefully change what your beliefs and statements as to not make that fallacy.

homosexual and bestial marriages are not outlawed

Yes, they are outlawed in many places including much of the USA. Remember, we are talking about civil marriage not ceremonial/religious marriage. Nobody here is suggesting outlawing religious/ceremonial marriage; one could perform a religious ceremony to marry his television set to his refrigerator and that's not illegal; that's not the kind of marriage we are talking about. We're talking about a special type of contract between two consenting adults that is the personal equivalent of a corporate merger. It is outlawed in the sense that a government could outlaw mortgage contracts with interest rates above X percent (particularly if the completing valid mortgage contracts required filing it with the government having it approved); it doesn't necessarily mean anyone is going to jail or even being fined; it might just mean two consenting competent adults in a monogamous lifelong relationship who wish to enter into this civil arrangement cannot do so if in the case of gay marriage being outlawed they happen to be of the same gender or in the case of high-interest government-enforced mortgage contracts being outlawed they want to loan at a high interest rate.

In the name of the free market, I do not support using the law to disable two consenting competent adults from entering into a civil/contractual arrangement and having that arrangement recognized by the government whether the contract is a mortgage contract, employment contract or marriage contract. Using the law to invalidate (a.k.a. 'outlaw') such a contractual/civil arrangement based on the gender of the people entering such a civil arrangement is particularly disturbing to me. I think sexism or homophobia is a particularly foolish reason to infringe on the freedom of the market.

I thought that civil unions were available to same-sex couples

I am using the term 'civil union' synonymously with civil marriage. (Again we are NOT talking about religious/ceremonial marriage; religious officials can do or refuse to do whatever kind of ridiculous or allegedly sacred ceremonies they wish in any country with a free exercise clause.) So, no, civil unions are not available to homosexuals in many states in the USA and in my places in the world. This would be analogous to if you had blue eyes and went to a job interview and the employer wanted to hire you but to work for the employer you needed to agree to and sign a valid employment contract but in your country 'blue eyed employment contracts' were outlawed (or "not institutionalized" or whatever you want to call it) so that any contract you signed with that employer would not be recognized as valid by the government and thus they could not name you as one of their employees in any official sense. This of course has legal ramifications. For instance, in the case of civil unions/marriages being outlawed for homosexuals it means they can't file their taxes jointly; they are unable to get the same visitation rights or next-of-kin status for inheritance and such with their would-be spouse. In the case of the employment contracts being outlawed for blue-eyed people, it means you might have not be able to get a credit card or such that requires you to have a valid long-term job or your taxes can't be deducted simply from your paycheck.

In other words, homosexual marriages are not approved of because, on a secular basis, the majority of the citizenry considers homosexuality a sexual perversion (more precisely a misdirection of the reproductive drive).

I disagree. I don't think most people would genuinely consider homosexuality perverse under any common definition of perverse--at least not any more perverse than sex between the elderly, drinking diet soda, heterosexual protected sex, heterosexual sex between infertile people (e.g. any woman who has had a hysterectomy) and heterosexual sex between terminally ill patients. I think there are various types of laws against homosexuality including the laws that prohibit homosexuals from entering into the type of civil union commonly called civil 'marriage' because religiously many people think it is sinful. This is emphasized by them often claiming homosexuals or tolerance of homosexuals is somehow threatening the 'sanctity' of something. As such, I think their desire to outlaw homosexual civil unions/marriages is in direct conflict with what Thomas Jefferson referred to as the constitutional separation of Church and State in the USA and in any other country with a similar free exercise clause or law.

1. Do you think that Propostion 8 should be repealed?

I would like to see it repealed. I would support repealing it. I think it is a discriminatory, harmful infringement on the free market to disallow same-sex couples from entering into the type of civil union that California calls "marriage"--not to be confused with ceremonial/religious marriage. However, I would support also changing the terminology Califorina uses and instead calling that type of contract a "civil union" or some other similar phrase (for both homosexual and heterosexual couples) to avoid the confusion with religious ceremonies.

2. Do you think that we should approve of homosexual marriages,

I support free speech and free thought. I want a legal system that allows you to disapprove of certain people or certain combination of people entering into certain types of contracts. Of any contractual agreement or other consensual interaction between competent consenting adults, some people will likely disapprove and others will approve.

[[..]institutionalizing them on a par with heterosexual ones?

If by "institutionalizing them," you simply mean not declaring them all legally invalid or otherwise outlawing them, then yes, I do NOT want to infringe on the free market by prohibiting couples from entering into a certain type of contract or civil arrangement based on whether they are the same gender or not. In other words, I want them 'institutionalized' in the same way my lease agreement with my landlord is 'institutionalized' and my car registration and title is 'institutionalized.' Maybe my car is pink, and maybe most people think it is perverse for a man to drive a pink car, but I think it would be a harmful infringement on the free market for them to vote to 'un-institutionalize' my car registration such that the car couldn't be in my name and I couldn't own it (which would have legal ramifications like disabling me from using it as collateral for a loan, etc.) In the same way, I think it is a harmful infringement on the free market to 'un-institutionalize' civil "marriage" contracts and licenses that happen to be for couples who are the same gender (which like with the car has legal ramifications such as disabling them from joint filing taxes, being able to visit at certain hospitals or being considered next-of-kin for inheritance or power of attorney or such).

With that said, I do think it would be wise for the government to stop labeling certain types of contracts with religious or ceremonial terms that may offend large groups of people. For that reason, the type of civil arrangement or contract currently commonly known as civil 'marriage' is something I would prefer is changed to be called something like 'civil union' by the government regardless of whether its heterosexual or homosexual.

'That's all there is to it' isn't philosophy. There is no reasoning here. You need to explain, first, why should the law be based on morality? Second, whose version of morality? (Yours, I'm assuming). Third, why is gayness immoral? Fourth, even if it is immoral, why should we legislate against it? What tangible good would it do to society to have it illegal?

If the world legalises immorality, the world will cease to exist immediately, within a few years.
I explained very thoroughly why gayness is immoral in a different post about morality and homosexuality (if you care to look it up).
There is no "why the law is based on morality" that's how it is.
If the law is based on immorality then all people are going to revolt and eventually destroy each other.

Everything would still end up being in a singular direction. People would just lack the ability to notice it but if you were to put placements on a graph it would show a steady increase. It might have to do with right and wrong and the power of argument. As the power becomes more drifted towards the people and less individual control we open our eyes to the differneces amongst each person. When we can start recognizing the differences amongst every individual we can then classify each as being unique. The amount of talent can then sway to different hands by so many having a different approach.

People will always have in their head that they may be right by having their feelings attached to it but they are not right. It seems to take awhile before we can register all the seperate new arguments that are presented. Instead we have a longer list of virtues and vices. Having a greater length of a list allows more people to form a selection. So each individual is now more capable of bringing their cards to the table. These cards they bring to the table are what allows them a fight for their own rights. It seems to be the ability to present an argument which democracy allows to be true.

I find it distasteful that people look at the minority group population and assume that they are wrong. Its nearly like the minority group has to find all the small bits and pieces in history to present their argument. The large group has larger arguments to present and the small group tends to have to fight for a period allowing more studies to be released confirming their own meaning.

It is difficult for me to look at another persons argument and not want to fight back with my own meaning by my feelings but I know that the words they have are coming out exactly the same as my own.

We are creating arguments out of clauses of contracts but not off how a gay individual feels. Its nearly as if the only thing a person can do is pick out clauses to argue with and another person picks out another clause of a contract to fire back. I think there should be more explained on how and why they have to fight to begin with or what is enabling them to fight.

The steady direction of individual freedom and democracy will progress and the minority group will continue to be forced to discover themselves in small forms shown throughout history. Its as if they have to search for themselves and get slightly happy when they see a small nitch leaning toward their favor.

Dear Scott,

In reply to your post of 6/4/10 (#68):

"Yes, they are outlawed in many places including much of the USA."

Can you point out the case of a criminal prosecution for either a homosexual or bestial marriage in the USA on the Internet?

Jackowens wrote: I thought that civil unions were available to same-sex couples

"I am using the term 'civil union' synonymously with civil marriage."

But people are trying to keep the two separate and voted that way, the reason being that a homosexual union is thought to be a sexual perversion and not a suitable basis for a cultural institution. Anyway the present controversy is not over whether we should use "civil union" and "marriage" synonymously.

Jackowens wrote: 2. Do you think that we should approve of homosexual marriages,

"I support free speech and free thought. I want a legal system that allows you to disapprove of certain people or certain combination of people entering into certain types of contracts. Of any contractual agreement or other consensual interaction between competent consenting adults, some people will likely disapprove and others will approve."

I don't care how far into detail you go before or after a "yes" or "no" answer to my question, but please give me a "yes " or "no". For my part, I say no --and without details. If details are wanted, I'll wait for questions.

Do you think that we should approve of homosexual marriages?

"In other words, I want..."

I don't want..."

Now, speaking of cultural institutions, how do we decide between those who want and those who don't want? A vote?

Regards,

Jack

[Scott]

"Yes, they are outlawed in many places including much of the USA."

Can you point out the case of a criminal prosecution for either a homosexual or bestial marriage in the USA on the Internet?

I cannot show you a case of a criminal prosecution for a dog registering a car, for a 4-year-old taking out a mortgage, for a felon ineligible to vote casting a ballot, or for a guy with too many DUIs getting a license. The occurrence of regular criminal prosecutions is not what is necessarily meant by outlawing a type of contract or civil arrangement. I explained that in post #64 when I wrote, "If we are talking simply about a contract (such as a certain type of mortgage contract, a marriage contract or an employment contract) 'criminalizing' it might just mean invalidating any attempted instance of that type of contract, forcefully stopping people from filing or completing such a contract..."

In the case of contracts and civil arrangements, particularly those that require filing or notarization by the government to be completed like a car registration or title or civil union, outlawing them simply prevents them from occurring and generally does not lead to any need to prosecut people for violating the ban. If anyone did get around the ban, they would probably have to do it by fraud (e.g. a guy with too many DUIs to register a car or get a license lying to the DMV to get one). In that case, they would be charged with fraud.

Incidentally, consider Jason West, was charged with 19 violations in 2004 for performing gay marriages.

2. Do you think that we should approve of homosexual marriages,

I support free speech and free thought. I want a legal system that allows you to disapprove of certain people or certain combination of people entering into certain types of contracts. Of any contractual agreement or other consensual interaction between competent consenting adults, some people will likely disapprove and others will approve.

I don't care how far into detail you go before or after a "yes" or "no" answer to my question, but please give me a "yes " or "no". For my part, I say no --and without details. If details are wanted, I'll wait for questions.

Do you think that we should approve of homosexual marriages?

Your 'yes or no' question is loaded, which is a form of the false dilemma fallacy. I can no more answer it with just a yes or no than you could if I asked you, "Have you stopped beating your wife yet--yes or no?"

Since I support free-speech and free-thought, I don't want the law to require all of us to approve of homosexual marriage (or anything), AND I don't want the law to require us to disapprove of homosexual marriage (or anything). I don't think you "should" approve of anything; I don't think you "should" disapprove of anything, so I guess if I had to answer yes or no to your question, "Do you think we should..." I'd answer it with a no. But--like I want it to be legal to talk about bowel movements in public--I do want civil unions/marriages to be legal between any two consenting competent adults regardless of whether they are the same sex or not and regardless of whether or not I, you or both of us personally disapprove or personally approve.

In other words, I want them 'institutionalized' in the same way my lease agreement with my landlord is 'institutionalized' and my car registration and title is 'institutionalized.' Maybe my car is pink, and maybe most people think it is perverse for a man to drive a pink car, but I think it would be a harmful infringement on the free market for them to vote to 'un-institutionalize' my car registration such that the car couldn't be in my name and I couldn't own it (which would have legal ramifications like disabling me from using it as collateral for a loan, etc.) In the same way, I think it is a harmful infringement on the free market to 'un-institutionalize' civil "marriage" contracts and licenses that happen to be for couples who are the same gender (which like with the car has legal ramifications such as disabling them from joint filing taxes, being able to visit at certain hospitals or being considered next-of-kin for inheritance or power of attorney or such).

I don't want...

Why? What justification do you have for infringing on the freedom of the market by using the law to disallow two consenting adults to enter into a certain contract or civil arrangement (such as registering a car, getting a vehicle title, getting married or taking out a loan) because of their genders (or race, ethnicity or eye-color)?

As has been explained to you, one can disapprove of X, think X is immoral, gross and/or perverse, and/or frown upon X but still want X to illegal. So it can't just be that you--and perhaps a majority of voters--think it is perverse, gross or immoral. That's unreasonable. To illustrate this with an analogy, would you want me to be legally prohibited from registering a pink car and getting a title or valid insurance for it if the majority of voters in my jurisdiction thought it was perverse for a man to drive a pink car? Why don't you agree that such prohibitions based on gender (or race, ethnicity or eye-color) are unfair? Why don't you support the free market at least enough to oppose discriminatory infringements on the market based on gender (or race, ethnicity or eye-color)?

Now, speaking of cultural institutions, how do we decide between those who want and those who don't want? A vote?

What do you mean by cultural institutions? Remember, we're not talking about religious things and ceremonies like religious marriage ceremonies and baptisms, which are things over which the government doesn't have jurisdiction in the USA or any country with a similar free exercise law. We're talking merely about contracts and civil arrangements that affect legal rights (like who is allowed visit one in the hospital).

To answer your question, I don't think a vote matters philosophically. There was a time when interracial marriage was outlawed (or "un-institutionalized") in the USA in the same way that homosexual marriage is currently outlawed (or "un-institutionalized") and most voters supported that racist prohibition. I adamantly oppose such discriminatory infringements on freedom regardless of whether or not the majority of voters would vote for it. When two wolves and one sheep use a vote to decide what to eat for dinner, it's still not fair or utilitarian. I don't see any advantage in some people--even a majority--using the law to prohibit consenting adults from entering into consensual contracts and civil arrangements merely because they think it is perverse, gross or immoral. When marriages (a.k.a. civil unions) between homosexuals are legalized, the right of homophobes and traditionalists to dislike, disapprove of, and frown upon homosexuals and homosexual marriages is not taken away in the same way that, when marriages (a.k.a.a civil unions) between interracial couples were legalized, the right of racists and traditionalists to dislike, disapprove of, and frown upon interracial couples was not taken away. Philosophically, I don't care whether or not the majority of people in any given society at any given time think a certain type of person, couple or contract is perverse, disgusting or immoral. Infringing on the free market, particularly based on discrimination of race, gender, ethnicity or religion, is harmful, unfair, oppressive and something I would like to see constitutionally prohibited in all countries.

Scott wrote

I don't think a vote matters philosophically

Isn`t it off topic to say this on a thread asking for our vote and giving us a poll, Civil unions are legal tenure Scott so why do Homosexuals need to push for them being called Marriage`s it seem`s much ado about nothing ?

In my opinion it wasn`t a loaded question that Jack asked you a yes or no to supporting it, the entire thread is pertaining to us answering yes or no in a poll vote.

Dear Scott,

In reply to your post of 6/4/10 (#72):

"The occurrence of regular criminal prosecutions is not what is necessarily meant by outlawing a type of contract or civil arrangement."

Okay. If you want to dramatize the homosexual marriage controversy by intoducing the term "crminalize" or "crime" into it, I'll take that as your preference. For my part I'll wait until I hear of a criminal prosecution of a homosexual or bestial marriage; then I'll be willing to look at the matter again.

For the rest of your post, I believe I'm going to have to hear you out on your "Debate Methodology - How to point out each other's errors" thread before I can reply.

Regards,

Jack

I'm with Scott on this one. Civil Unions should be available for all peoples be they same sex, opposite sex, transgender or transexual. I see no problem in calling these civil unions, marriage. I see no problem in making civil marriages legally binding and church marriages not: So that a traditional faith wedding must be first or second recognized by the state as a civil marriage if it is to be legal.

What I do have an issue with is people who openly flout religious conventions expecting a traditional faith marriage. It's wrong and disrespectful towards the faith involved. As a Hedonist, I am affected by this and so cannot be married in a faith based ceremony. But then I wouldn't want to be. It is disrespectful towards my beliefs. It also affects same sex partners and atheists and many other kinds of people... but then again, why should they demand a faith based ceremony when that faith and they are at poles intellectually from one another.

Let the church wed the faithful and let the state legalize the union. For the rest of us, let the state recognize out commitments in love legally and find our own traditions of celebration for same.