Same Sex Marriage

[anarchyisbliss]

Many people claim that marriage is a religious institution yet they have no problem with allowing atheists to marry. Besides, if marriage is such a highly honorable act in the eyes of God why is it placed in the hands of the government. Has anyone heard of the separation of church and state?

[Jackowens]

Dear Friends,

I was on "Homosexual lifestyle immoral" thread of the Ethics and Morality forum but it ended inconclusively --at least to date-- because on one wanted to probe the matter at greater depth. That left it hanging in air with a number of unanswered questions. That being so, I thought I would bring the matter over here to see how far it would go.

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.

In California the vote was for #2, but the continuing question is, is #2 true.

As far as I know, there are only two ways to oppose homosexuality: on a) a religious/Scriptural basis, or b) a secular one.

If we argue in support of #2, I believe it can only be done on the basis of contending that homosexuality is a sexual perversion, going against the natural order in a biological sense (Homo sapiens having a sexual reproductive system) and taking into account anatomy, physiology and the reproduction of the species. Above the biological sense, social order requires that the primitive reproductive drive be controlled for the determination of parental responsibility.

Does that make sense so far?

Regards to all from

Jack Owens

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

1. WE SHOULD ALL APPROVE OF HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE.

2. NONE OF US SHOULD APPROVE OF HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE.

This is a false dilemma fallacy. You don't have to approve of homosexual marriage anymore than a racist has to approve of interracial marriage.

[Jackowens]

Dear Scott,

In reply to your post of 5/7/10 (#19):

1. WE SHOULD ALL APPROVE OF HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE.

2. NONE OF US SHOULD APPROVE OF HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE.

"This is a false dilemma fallacy."

I don't understand that. Can you explain its application as a fallacy?

As the present controversy actually exists and is voted on --for example here in California-- we are presented in the voting booth with two (2) opposing options: a) approving of homosexual marriage or b) disapproving of it. Unless one does not care to vote on the issue, there are no other options.

"You don't have to approve of homosexual marriage..."

And one does not have to disapprove of it, but I don't see what can be concluded from one or the other.

"...anymore than a racist has to approve of interracial marriage."

Interracial marriage is not a voting issue; homosexual marriage is. Bringing in interracial marriage seems like a red-herring to me.

Regards,

Jack

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

The vote determines whether or not same sex marriage is legalized or not. It is not a statement of approval.

You are creating a obvious false dilemma fallacy when you make it seem like the only option other than not legalizing a certain type of marriage is for everyone to approve of that type of marriage. Regardless of its outcome, the vote does not affect your right to disapprove of it in the way that a racist may disapprove of interracial marriage. You are falsely equating disapproval with criminalization.

A racist can still think it is 'immoral' for interracial people to get married even though it is legal. A racist can still disapprove of interracial marriage even though it is legal. A racist can still frown upon people who interracially marry even though it is legal. If the racist tries to stop interracial marriage from being legalized or argues for it to be criminalized by claiming that legalizing it takes away his right to disapprove of it, that would be analogously fallacious. I'm not making a red herring, I'm using an analogy to explain to you in what ways your right to disapprove of an activity is not taken away when that activity is made legal.

[Unrealist42]

Civil marriage grants certain legal rights and privileges to married couples that religious marriage does not. While civil authorities in some jurisdictions recognize religious marriages as civil marriage others do not and a civil marriage ceremony is required to grant the legal rights and privileges of civil marriage. In many places religious leaders are also justices of the peace and so authorized to sanctify religious and civil marriage at the same time.

Religious and civil marriage are very much two different things.

The real problem is a deliberate endeavor by religious fanatics to equate religious marriage to civil marriage and use that premise to generate fear that religious freedom is endangered because the civil authorities seek to broaden the civil definition of marriage in ways that are anathema to their religious beliefs.

This is nothing less than another venture to subvert the government to impose the tyranny of a particular religious perspective over all the people of the nation.

There is a long history in the US of particular religious values becoming law. This does not mean they were always in tune with Constitutional guarantees of individual right or the explicit separation of church and state. That religiously inspired laws are regularly overturned by the courts is a sign that religious subversion of the government is ubiquitous.

[Jackowens]

Dear Scott,

In reply to your post of 5/7/10 (#21):

"The vote determines whether or not same sex marriage is legalized or not. It is not a statement of approval."

Hmmmmm.....

You know, that's the first time I've come across that distinction and I'm tryng to figure out just how you're making it. To start, I'm not quite sure how you're using the word "It". The statement itself, as you say, is not an approval or disapproval but the act of voting is. In other words, if I'm faced with the proposition in the voting booth, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California" and I mark the "Yes" box with an "X", is that not a disapproval of homosexual marriage? It certainly was my intention. What should I have done to express my disapproval?

Have you checked your contention out with purpose of others who put an "X" in the "Yes" box on that vote? I find your point confusing.

"You are creating a obvious false dilemma fallacy when you make it seem like the only option other than not legalizing a certain type of marriage is for everyone to approve of that type of marriage."

I looked up "false dilemma" on the Internet and found, "The logical fallacy of false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy) involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are other options. ..."

The vote was limited to the two alternatives I gave. The only other option would be not to vote. What other options did I fail to take into account when the issue came up for a vote?

I'm having trouble trying to follow your reasoning in paralleling interracial marriage with the vote on homosexual marriage, but let's take this a step at a time and try to settle the validity of your accusation that I'm guilty of being involved in the false dilemma fallacy first.

Regards,

Jack

[Cha0t1c1]

This is a secular argument presented by a post doctoral student

[quote=Adam Kolasinksi]

Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason to grant them the costly benefits of marriage.

The Tech, Volume 124, Number 5
Tuesday, February 17, 2004
[/quote]

in it, he surmises that marriage is an institute used to propagate society and not based on emotional and sexual preferences. a marriage implies coupling of reproduction.

[Wonder]

I have to use the scripture to answer this.

It would be very easy to say that as long i don't do it I should allow others to do it in the name of freedom or freedom of choise, or some twisted understanding of human nature.
The ideas of freedom in this case are certaily inferior to morality and without morality this world cannot possibly exist
Law is the essential behind morality.
So therefore we cannot allow the law to give infinite freedom to anybody, or anybody's sin.
The results of doing this will certainly be catastrofic for everybody and not only for the (sinners) homosexuals.
And that is no joke.
Consider the fate of Lot's wife in Sodoma.
She was told to leave and "not look back". Instead of obeying, she curiously turned back to see and was instantly turned to salt. (lost her life)
Whether this is actual history or not, is not important. Only its meaning is important (for those who can understand it of cource.
We absolutely and undoubtly have to deduce that we all will be turned to salt, anyone of us who lets the law of sin become the law of man.
Otehrwise catastrophy is only a matter of time, and it is a catastrophy of the nation, or the human species in its totality.

So overall, allowing these marriages is not only stupid.....its signing your own death warrant.

I don't have to be a genius to understand human nature.
I am a man and homosexuals are not men. Thats all there is to this question.

All this is besides God's Will, and God certainly hates homosexuals, enough to burn them like in Sodoma.
Even if we don't care at all about God's Will, we cannot allow sin to become LAW, for that will be the end of us all.

[whitetrshsoldier]

I'll ask the question that I believe is most pertinent once again ... WHY does the State feel that it may sanction a non-business [commerce] relationship between two private entities?

I don't remember reading about that in the Constitution ...

Maybe if there were no State-sanctioned concept of "Marriage" in the first place, and it remained a private commitment between individuals, we wouldn't have this damn problem.

[Jackowens]

Dear whitetrshsoldier,

In reply to your post of 5/20/10 (#26):

"WHY does the State feel that it may sanction a non-business [commerce] relationship between two private entities?"

First of all, if you're talking about two private entities, in contrast to two members of a community sharing common values, those entities can arrange their private marriage. As I understand it that occurs all the time.

The state that you mention can be more specifically denoted by apeaking of the politicians, bureaucrats and judiciary involved in this controversy.

What is really at issue here --and correct me if I'm wrong-- is whether those politicians and bureaucrats and that judiciary are going to take the matter out of the hands of the voting citizenry and, in effect, force that citizenry to approve of a sexual perversion as a basis for the cultural institution of marriage by fiat.

Any flaws in that?

Regards,

Jack

[whitetrshsoldier]

"WHY does the State feel that it may sanction a non-business [commerce] relationship between two private entities?"

First of all, if you're talking about two private entities, in contrast to two members of a community sharing common values, those entities can arrange their private marriage. As I understand it that occurs all the time.

The state that you mention can be more specifically denoted by apeaking of the politicians, bureaucrats and judiciary involved in this controversy.

What is really at issue here --and correct me if I'm wrong-- is whether those politicians and bureaucrats and that judiciary are going to take the matter out of the hands of the voting citizenry and, in effect, force that citizenry to approve of a sexual perversion as a basis for the cultural institution of marriage by fiat.

Any flaws in that?

Regards,

Jack

Jack,

I'm simply stating that a State-sanctioned recognition of the private and personal relationship between two individuals need not exist.

Why does the State recognize marriage in the first place? People will continue to form "families", and "procreate" without a piece of paper saying that they have a "license" to do so.

Personal relationships are not granted at the behest of any select elite, represented or not.

[Unrealist42]

As I said earlier, the state has a certain obligation to determine the legal relationship of individuals. This concerns strictly legal matters such as guardianship, power of attorney, inheritance etc and is wholly different from religious matters. It was the religious who first clamored for legal recognition of religious marriage as a sort of blanket vehicle for government determination of legal relationships, which was reluctantly granted.

The problem now is that the religious seek to deny the legal determinations that marriage grants on the premise that marriage is a strictly religious ritual. This is completely disingenuous and nothing less than an underhanded attempt to use the government to deny the legal rights of marriage to those who the religious wish to discriminate against.

The state grants a courtesy to religion and religion construes that courtesy as an obligation of the state to reflect religious views.

If the churches and preachers want to play politics they should pay taxes.

[Wonder]

I have something to say about guardianship of gay couples.

Anybody who delivers a little child's soul to the hands of gay people to be raised is a criminal and should be treated that way by others and by God of course.

If democracy thinks it can overcome this by vote, and loose the blame, then Democracy will be abolished of the face of the earth.
England, where these things start to take effect, and Holland also, will be the first to go with the imminent earth's magnetic poles shift.
Any human society in its right mind should never allow these things to take place.
Hopefully Americans are not stupid enough to do this in the name of openmindness.

[whitetrshsoldier]

As I said earlier, the state has a certain obligation to determine the legal relationship of individuals. This concerns strictly legal matters such as guardianship, power of attorney, inheritance etc and is wholly different from religious matters. It was the religious who first clamored for legal recognition of religious marriage as a sort of blanket vehicle for government determination of legal relationships, which was reluctantly granted.

The problem now is that the religious seek to deny the legal determinations that marriage grants on the premise that marriage is a strictly religious ritual. This is completely disingenuous and nothing less than an underhanded attempt to use the government to deny the legal rights of marriage to those who the religious wish to discriminate against.

The state grants a courtesy to religion and religion construes that courtesy as an obligation of the state to reflect religious views.

If the churches and preachers want to play politics they should pay taxes.

You're correct to state that the government may determine the legal status of an economic relationship [i.e. inheritance, guardianship, etc.]. Trusts, LLCs, Corporations, etc., can be formed by individuals.

That's it. Nothing else.