Wednesday, May 9, 2012

The Unintelligibility of Same-Sex Marriage

God is the author of marriage, but this does not convince same-sex marriage activists. The “Adam & Eve, not Adam & Steve” argument doesn’t go very far. The reflex rebuttals are, “You have no right to impose your religion on others” and the familiar “Separation of Church and State.”

At this point the dialog shuts down, but I find that secular arguments tend to re-boot the discussion. I occasionally debate proponents on other forums. To be honest, they have quite a bit of difficulty breaking down the logic in the following post:

Few things represent a lack-of-thinking more than the idea of same-sex marriage. We need to turn down the noise on this issue and look at the facts.

Why is the government in the marriage business?
Does the government care who you “love”?
Would marriage exist if humans reproduced asexually?

The nature of male/female marriage leads directly to the building blocks of a nation just like the cells of a body. Strong families and a productive future citizenry result from a permanent and loving union between one male and one female. If we don’t see this clear connection to our society, we’re just not looking. The very idea that The State should NOT give incentive & recognize a procreative union as unique from other types of human unions boggles the mind.

You will ask; what about infertile couples or couples who do not want children? This question brings a new debate. The debate becomes, should marriage be defined as any man and any woman or only a man and woman willing & able to have children. The question in no way logically justifies same-sex marriage.

You will ask; what about equal rights for all? Many relationships, other than marriages, have tremendous personal significance to those involved. The fact that we do not call them marriages is not evidence of bigotry, but recognition of reality.

Proponents of same-sex marriage insist that marriage has nothing whatsoever to do with reproduction; why children? I like to counter with a question of my own; why sex? Suppose two sisters share a household and love each other very much. Why should they not be married if they want?  Why discriminate against people because they are not sexually attracted to each other? It’s not fair.

Another question; why the number “two”? Why can’t marriage be any 3 people or any 30 people? I’ve been told this is a slippery slope argument and slippery slope arguments are automatically invalid. So if my kids are playing with matches, and I project that there will be a fire and someone will get hurt, this would be another automatically invalid slippery slope argument.

Then there is the discussion about “What’s it to you?” Let them marry. It does not affect heterosexual marriage in any way. This would be a separate post I think. For the purposes of this post, I’ll say that I prefer my government do things that are intelligible as oppose to unintelligible. What say you?
Marriage should be reinforced, not redefined.

52 comments:

  1. "God is the author of marriage..."

    Well, I don't know what Martin will say to that, but I'm calling BS on it. Marriage existed long before anyone ever thought of this particular god.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But The First Cause (God) existed before anyone thought of a particular “god” or a particlur idea of marriage.

      Delete
    2. According to you Ben, humanity existed for 100,000 to 200,000 years as a species, living, dying (generally before the age of 30), terrorized by the world they had no control over, no knowledge of and very little defense against disease. Then a few thousand years ago, God looked down and thought, maybe it's time I did something about it. God may have exited long before us but human marriage existed long before he bothered to tell humanity about his rules and regulations. We have first rights on that one.

      Rationalist1

      Delete
    3. Anonymous,

      That's kind of odd as I didn't read any of your numbers or those statements in Ben's post.

      Be that as it may, you seem to be anthropomorphising God as a guy who built a Sims-like Earth and, after a prolonged bathroom break, realized that it was really messed up and had to take a hand.

      That is not the God that Christianity professes. God walked with humanity teaching and interacting from the beginning. God doesn't give rules and regulations, he gives the answer to "how should I live?" and "What am I here for?" Since he designed it all and is the only one who knows how and what for.

      Delete
    4. Joe. Then if he doesn't give rules then why the fuss about SSM?

      Rationalist1.

      Delete
    5. My comment using the numbers is the accepted length of time that humans have existed as a separate species. My use of that was in the context, I assumed it was clear, of saying that humans for most of their history were not given the Biblical instructions that we been afforded in the last few percent of our history.

      Rationalist1

      Delete
    6. That's interesting. You seem to be confusing the creation of the bible and the events that took place in it.

      If people had to read the bible themselves to know God's will, then we've had only a few hundred years of printed bibles and many fewer years of literate people.

      If there is a God and God created and interacted with people, then from the beginning, God made his will known to them. That's clear from the Bible.

      The story of God's people in the bible is clear that even in the natural state, men and women were meant to mate and procreate, not men and men or women and women. They (we) were built that way.

      To your comment about "why the fuss," I'd say that there are many ways to act in life. Some are right and some are wrong. Do you agree or is there only practical and impractical? If the former, where do those morals come from?

      Delete
    7. Joe,

      People have had Scripture and prophets for three thousand years. We don't need movable type to create Bibles.In the Christian view God's revelation to his creation started roughly four thousand years ago. So for 2% to 4% of the history of the human race the Judeao-Christian God was silent. Prior to that humans had myriad other Gods and still do into modern times.

      To say that the Judeao-Christian concept of marriage (accepting even if it did start out as polygamy) is the only valid one is the height of hubris.

      I say again. People were marrying long before your God started setting down the grounds rules.

      Rationalist1

      Delete
  2. Very good post. The problem is that Christian denominations in general, including the Church, adopted a "tolerant" attitude towards divorce. The American Church's backdoor method of baptizing divorce essentially redefined marriage. Until the modernist Church returns to the teachings of the Church, the Catholic argument against homosexual "marriage" will hold little sway.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The slippery slope argument is interesting. It's worth noting that in 18th century Utah, Muslim countries countries, and Old Testament times the practice of polygamy did not lead to all sorts of none standard marriage relationships.

    Also, here in Canada we've had SSM for 7 years now. To anyone who decries to me the negative affect of SSM on OSM, I reply "It hasn't affected mine in the least, how has it affected yours?" No one has ever come up with an answer for that.

    Rationalist1

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I work with trouble shooting logic for living. One key is to understand the difference between “effect” & “cause”. People do not know the true purpose of sex (unitive & procreative) and I do think accepting SSM is more of an effect of this and not a cause of it.

      Additionally, do we really see the slippery slope as we are sliding?? Many thought that the invention artificial contraception would clearly strengthen marriages, reduce abortion, reduce divorce and reduce poverty. People still think this today. What does the data show us?

      Delete
    2. When society allowed women to vote 100 years ago, we don't now see gerbils voting. Slippery slope arguments are generally spurious and if you can't see the slippery slope as we are sliding how do you know we are on one.

      You say that the purpose of sex is unitive and procreative. With regards to the later should I tell my septuagenarian parents to stop it? Besides that's your view and it is your right to hold it. What you may not do is impose it on society as a whole.

      I still ask my question. Has the existence of gay marriage affected anyone in a opposite sex marriage? If so, how?

      Delete
    3. Sorry, forgot to sign the previous post.

      Rationalist1

      Delete
    4. Anonymous,

      Your parents need not stop it, since it is still unitive and will remain so for the rest of their lives!

      Christianity holds that it is not just our view, it is God's view. Even so, you need not believe it and you are free to reject it if you don't believe in God or if you don't believe God holds that view. However if true, it should cause you to weigh that view carefully before doing so. That is why reason plays so large a part.

      Let me ask you, "What is the benefit to society to encourage and promote SSM?" It is not just that you cannot find why it causes harm, but to find a compelling reason why society should encourage it as it does marriage.

      I think we can put up a compelling case as to why society should encourage marriage. Why is society better with SSM?

      Let's start there.

      Delete
    5. Anonymous,
      I’m not picking on SSM. I will say that anything that that falls outside the true nature of sex affects the whole society. We do not live in a vacuum. But you will say “who am I to say what the true nature of sex is for everyone?”

      I’ll stick to the answer in my post. I don’t want my government doing things that make no sense. Think of this question: what type of sex benefits society for the “common good”, fornication between men & women, incest, gay sex, prostitution? How about this one?…..one man and one woman committed for life. This generally leads to children and families. This last one should be encouraged & recognized (not forced) by the government. It makes sense for the government to be involved; the others do not.

      Delete
    6. I had another comment to make on the slippery slope issue.

      The gerbils comment is actually pretty spurious IMHO.

      What is next is not gerbils but polygamy and a simultaneous devaluing of marriage in general. You should see fewer people getting married since it doesn't matter and why get married if you might divorce later? That has contributed to the over sexual stimulation of men and the objectivizing of women. Let's make sure no children issue from a casual hookup, and if it does, abortion fills the gap.

      Now we are told that men and women are so much the same that you need not worry about the gender of your partner much less making a commitment. However there are societal and financial benefits to the NORMALIZATION of SSM. Let's drape the mantle of respectability and tax breaks over SSM because it's really the same thing. They want to inherit the society-protected status of marriage for free.

      Again, when someone can show the benefits to society as marriage has (and by marriage I mean monogamous, heterosexuality where children are at least possible) then we can continue.

      Delete
    7. Joe - Be consistent. You say marriage is both procreative and unitive, yet you say its okay that its only unitive. Then you'll answer that it obviously was once procreative, since I'm here, but then I'll say would you allow senior first time couples to marry and we get nowhere.

      What is the benefit to society of SSM? Loving, stable relationships is the benefit. Settling down, buying a house, care in sickness and in old sage. The benefit is that two people who love each other can be with each other. The benefit is that more of society gets the benefit that non gays have with marriage.

      Do you know a gay couple? Do you think they should be denied the joy of marriage? WOuld you be willing to say it to their face?

      Rationalist1

      Delete
    8. Joe,

      Here's a benefit of SSM.

      This couple finally got to make a public marriage commitment.

      http://abcnews.go.com/US/slideshow/sex-couples-tie-knot-manhattan-month-gay-marriage-14153047

      I defy anyone to publicly say their marriage isn't a beautiful thing for society.

      Did polygamy devalue marriage for all the Old Testament patriarchs?

      "where children are at least possible) then we can continue." My aunt is widowed and doesn't have a uterus. Will you seek to not let her remarry?

      "They want to inherit the society-protected status of marriage for free" Yes they do, because they are entitled to every right that you are.

      Again, unless you're prepared to ask for a benefit for every change we encounter in society, the give me one negative affect SSM has had on you? I've asked this question scores of times and nobody has every given me an answer. That to me is telling.

      Rationalist1

      Delete
    9. Ben - If you truly trouble shoot logic for a living then doesn't this question, "Additionally, do we really see the slippery slope as we are sliding?", imply that we can't use the slippery slope argument on either side? It would equally prevent me from saying, first they disallow SSM, then they'll disallow remarriage, next they'll disallow marriage outside of the Catholic Church, etc.

      It's silly. If you can't see the slippery slope when you're on it, as you imply, then you can't say we're on a slippery slope.

      Rationalist1

      Delete
    10. Joe - Of course the gerbils comment was spurious, it was meant to illustrate how slipery slope arguments are spurious.

      "You should see fewer people getting married since it doesn't matter and why get married if you might divorce later?"

      Then why not promote marriage by saying it's so important that we want to encourage it, for those whose chose, by saying to gays, don't live together, get married.

      Rationalist1

      Delete
    11. Not only do I troubleshoot for a living, I’m certified to teach a class in logic, logic in terms of trouble shooting and decision making. You’d be surprise how it’s not about “proof”. It’s about inching toward what is MORE reasonable and inching away from what is LESS reasonable. Of course, what is “reasonable” depends on certain premises and objectives.

      In terms of the slippery slope, I’ll just say... because you can’t see it or feel it, does not mean it does not exist.

      Also, please forgive me for any delay in publishing your comments. I don’t blog for a living. I’ll allow anything that is civil/respectful. Thank you for your respectful comments. I hope it can continue in this manner.

      Delete
    12. Anonymous,

      That's like saying "I want to promote something, so let's call that marriage."

      Is that reasonable?

      Delete
    13. Rationalist1,

      Let's continue down the slippery slope.

      First of all, marriage is both unitive and procreative. If the couple is trying to be united and open to procreation, it is a great marriage. That is the goal. If, through no fault of their own they achieve neither, but want to stay married, by all means they can. If a couple is infertile, they are still called to be fruitful together some other way. Even unmarried people are called to be fruitful in some (non-sexual) way. This is not a special case, but a general rule for Christians. Be the best version of yourself you can be. That frequently means doing the right thing despite not wanting to. That means denying my natural urges to selfishness, anger, pride, lust, sloth, etc. It may also mean denying acting on urges to members of the same sex.

      Since we are dealing with definitions, one of the things your comments bring up is "How do you define the rules?" You don't agree with the definition of marriage that has been around since day 1. You disagree with unitive and procreative. Okay, let's see how this method works out.

      You seemed to suggest that the only criterion for marriage is a loving, stable relationship. Stable meaning what? Must be married 1 year, 2, 5, 50? What's the metric? Loving is even harder to measure. What if I don't love her/him alot? Should I be banned from marrying? Do we need to count sexual encounters per week? Dinners out? Date nights? Long walks? This doesn't really lend itself to non quantitative valuation...

      Let's just say "consenting" since you can have the marriage as long as both consent. That should produce stable, long-term committed couples. Wait, that doesn't work because without a commitment, when the times get tough, people tend to bail out of the relationship. What happens to the stability you promised? The settling down? You seem to be selling me a bill of goods!

      This seems no better than a bad opposite-sex marriage scheme without even the benefits of procreation that society NEEDS.

      It may someday become legal, but SSM does not really sound worth promoting.

      Delete
    14. "You’d be surprise how it’s not about “proof”. " My background is physics, a couple of degrees. Proof only exists in mathematics, and there the truth is contained in the premises. Proof does not exist in the real world, not even in science, only increasing level of confidence.

      But what does exist in science is the ability to disprove and assertion. Of I say gay marriage does not affect heterosexual marriage, I cannot prove it, but you can disprove it by giving an example of how heterosexual marriage has been damaged by the 7 years of gay marriage, for instance, we've had in Canada.

      "In terms of the slippery slope, I’ll just say... because you can’t see it or feel it, does not mean it does not exist." Reminds me of the 19th century of aether (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories)

      "Also, please forgive me for any delay in publishing your comments." Not a problem at all.

      Rationalist1

      Delete
    15. "First of all, marriage is both unitive and procreative." No, I've detailed situations where non procreative marriages are allowed.

      "You don't agree with the definition of marriage that has been around since day 1."

      I argue that even in your Judeao-Christian tradition marriage definitions have changed.

      "You seemed to suggest that the only criterion for marriage is a loving, stable relationship." That's not the criteria but the goal (alas often not achieved) of marriage.

      "Let's just say "consenting" since you can have the marriage as long as both consent." You have to have consent, as that can be one of the criteria that allows a Catholic annullment.

      "It may someday become legal" It has become legal here in Canada, and with the exception of perhaps 10% of the population, it's a non issue. Even practicing Christians/Catholic who disagree with SSM, respect the rights of non Christians/Catholics to have a marriage if their conscience allows.

      Rationalist1

      Delete
    16. I agree with your statements about proof. Ben's post stated that SSM is unintelligible. If the word marriage means, as it always has, a lifelong union between one man and one union, then a male/male marriage or woman/woman marriage is indeed unintelligible. The Judeo-Christian marriage definitions have never changed. I would be interested in you explaining why you think it has.

      My comments about "someday" applies to here in the States. Perhaps the Christians/Catholics in Canada respect the people without respecting the so called "rights" you refer to.

      Remember, rights are not conferred, they are only recognized.

      Delete
    17. "The Judeo-Christian marriage definitions have never changed. I would be interested in you explaining why you think it has." Except the Old Testament is filled with polygamy plus woman were treated as property. The definition has changed.

      Rationalist1

      Delete
    18. You are likely to be quoting Deuteronomy (although you do not cite anything). An understanding of Deuteronomy reveals that as the second-law (different from the Sinai-ic 10 commandments and the subsequent law given as a punitive reaction to the golden calf incident) is a law given by Moses as a representative of God but not from God himself. In that law, divorce is condoned and many other provisions are made for the "weakness" of men. (Matt 19:8)

      The Deuteronomic covenant law ended (for Christians) with Jesus.

      In any case, the text places LIMITS on the abuses of these already-existing practices. Why not prohibit them explicitly? We understand that this is the "second" law. The Levitical law (the "first" law) was not effective. The Israelites showed that after 40 years in the desert in the Baal-Peor incident. (Num 25)
      By the way, that incident also dealt with sexual sin.

      So, the laws were limits placed on a widowed sister-in-law. Its purpose was to encourage secondary marriage for the sake of children. However these were not the norm but the exception in order to produce some benefit (children) to society. The text of Deut 25 talks about how the widow WANTS to have children for her dead husband, not about how the man wants more women for his harem.

      Please note that never was SSM approved.

      Delete
    19. Joe - But you said the Judeo-Christian marriage definitions never changed. "Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon, and others all had multiple wives. In 2 Samuel 12:8; God, speaking through the prophet Nathan, said that if David’s wives and concubines were not enough, He would have given David even more. Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines (essentially wives of a lower status)" Polygamy was once allowed by now isn't. Women were treated as property but now aren't.

      Rationalist1

      Delete
    20. Thank you for mentioning those.

      Abraham, Jacob, David and Solomon were ALL breaking the definition of marriage and all were punished for it! Read the stories again (and again)!

      Abraham should not have taken Hagar.
      Jacob was tricked.
      Then the law was given.
      David should not have slept with Bathsheba.
      Solomon lost his kingdom for all his "wives" and concubines!

      This is the lesson Christians take from the stories. God let whole cities turn away even knowing the law. God is not Big Brother, forcing you to do it his way. He tells you the right way (after all, isn't that what philosophers want to know? "How is a man to live?") and lets you choose.

      None of these men were following what God wanted for marriage, but God made a three-fold promise to Abraham and, no matter how bad they screwed up, God would make good on the promise. However, those men all fell short of what God wanted and suffered the consequences.

      God doesn't treat people as disposable (although he could). He allows the world to be our work, to show externally who we are internally. If you like the world, great. If you don't, whose fault is that?

      Delete
    21. King Davis wasn't punished for having 300 wife and 700 concubines. Instead God promised that his offspring would be on the throne forever. Yes he killed Uriah and slept with Bathsheba but God didn't smite him the way he did Job with his one wife.

      Delete
  4. To play devil's advocate, there are same-sex couples raising children - particularly lesbian couples. Once the technique for altering female cells to act like sperm is perfected in humans, such couples will even be raising their own, genetic daughters. (It's already happening in lab mice.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My thought is often this when I hear such things:
      Once you remove God from “life/sex” decisions you lose touch with reality, and losing touch with reality is called INSANITY.

      Delete
    2. Ben,

      Whose God? And are you just as insane if you have the wrong God advising you on life decisions as if you don't have any God?

      Rationalist1

      Delete
    3. Rationalist1,

      Whose God? Therein lies the problem. There is only one God. If there were no God, then I would indeed be insane to believe in him. Fortunately, no one would exist, so that problem takes care of itself.

      It sounds as if you have more of a problem with people than with God. If you object to how people abuse religion for power, so do I. If you thereby decide that there is no God since he cannot be perfectly known, then that is illogical.

      Following the "wrong God" as you put it is quite different than asserting no God at all.

      Delete
    4. I asked Ben if he felt that not only non believers are insane (including 93% of the American National Academy of Science)but also those who follow Allah, the Buddha, Vishnu, etc. Does sanity exist only with those who follow the Christian God or will any of these God manifestations do.

      Rationalist1

      Delete
    5. In regards to “insanity”….. I’m not using it a medical definition, but a spiritual one. It is no secret that the Catholic Church claims a “fullness of faith”. It does NOT teach that it holds one valid opinion among many, or just one possible world view among many possible views. They claim to teach “Truth”, which would mean teaching things as they really are (reality). It is very wise to be suspicious of such a claim. This is why I like to encourage in depth study of Catholic teaching & theology.

      Delete
    6. "I’m not using it a medical definition, but a spiritual one." So if I call someone a moron (I won't, it's impolite), I can say I was not using a medical term, I was using a spiritual term? So non Catholics and non believers are spiritually insane?

      I have read Catholic theology extensively, when I was a Catholic believer, but I never ran across the term insane being used in any spiritual way.

      Delete
    7. Since you seem studious, I recommend a book by theologian Frank Sheed call, “Theology & Sanity”. He can explain it far better than I.

      Delete
    8. I have read Sheed, many years ago, but I don't remember him calling non Catholics or non believers insane, spiritual or otherwise.

      Delete
  5. You can have a hundred arguments for SSM but the whole point is IF you are a Catholic, or a Christian in general that believes what scripture says IS true and the 2000 year teachings of Catholic truth is still being taught, then allowing SSM is condoning homosexual acts which are a grave sin. If homosexuals want to indulge in sex, let them, but don't force the rest of us to recognize SSM as a holy and sacramental union of marriage. It cannot exist nor will it ever exist, even if legislated because SSM is fantasy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No one ever said you must recognize it as a holy and sacramental union of marriage. I was married outside the Catholic Church without a dispensation. Yet the state and society recognizes my marriage. The same treatment should be afforded to gay marriage.
      Rationalist1

      Delete
  6. You son't have to recognize SSM as a holy and sacramental marriage. Indeed you should not recognize my marriage as a holy and sacramental marriage as I got married outside the Church without a dispensation. But you need to recognize that I am married and have the full civil and societal status that entails. And you should recognize SSM as the same. You don't have to understand it, or approve of it, but only realize it's a loving couple seeking to express their love in a traditional way long denied them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rationalist1, you are right. I don't see SSM as holy and sacramental marriage because it can never be a marriage. They may have the same legal rights and status as hetero marriages because the law says so, but what the law cannot do no matter how many laws it passes is to redefine marriage as something other than as a union between a man and woman. You can call a union between same sex couples marriage all you want, but that STILL does not make it a marriage.

      Do I believe that they should have the same legal rights as unmarried hetero couples do? Yes. What ever rights hetero couples that are not married but living together have, then SS couples should have. THAT would discrimination. But calling it a marriage, sorry, secular society may try to redefine marriage, but then they would be delving into la la land. SSM is a fantasy. Water is H20. Marriage is a union between a man and woman.

      If you are married to a woman, then yes I would recognize that as a marriage, but not ss couples that THINK they are married. That I would not recognize nor accept as a marriage. I don't know if you are Christian or not, but if you are, then you know scripture calls homosexual acts as sinful. No pretend marriage can eliminate this reality. If I have not made myself clear then check out my last posting here and you may have some inkling to what I am saying about fantasy land. http://petersbarque.blogspot.com/

      By the way, the law may compel people to deal with "married" same sex couples by law, but what the law cannot do is make a person accept such a fantasy in their heart. SSM laws may give them more rights, but it will not get them respect for their union or change our hearts. Respect cannot be forced

      Delete
    2. I was raised Catholic, now an atheist and married to a wonderful woman. Scripture not only calls homosexual acts sinful (Homosexual acts are an abomination to God. Lev 18:22) but that homosexuals should be killed (If a man has sex with another man, kill them both. Lev. 20:13).

      Respect cannot be forced,it must always be earned. So get to kn ow a homosexual couple. They're your neighbours, collegues, even your family. You'll soon respect them because they arte just like you and me.

      Delete
    3. You misunderstood Rationalist1. I said that it will not get them respect FOR their union. We are taught to have respect for and to dignify our fellow human beings, and that is not accomplished by supporting a sinful lifestyle. As far as Lev. 20:13, Christ taught us mercy instead of an eye for an eye. As a matter of fact Rationalist1, the woman caught in adultery was to be stoned under the law, but Christ looked beyond that law and forgave her, BUT, he also told her to go and sin no more...I'm sorry Rationalist1, it is a false compassion and a misguided love for ones neighbor when you condone and support a sinful lifestyle and I refuse to do such a thing. I would rather love them as Christ has loved us...

      Delete
    4. Ordinary - You don't have to condone their lifestyle any more than you need to condone a serial divorcer and remarryer. But just as no one is saying a person like Rush Limbaugh can't get married again for 5th time if he wishes (to me a revolting condemnation of what marriage should be) we should equally not be saying that gay couples cannot get married for the first time.

      Delete
  7. Ben, I tend to think the state should get out of marriage altogether, but it doesn't appear likely so...

    You argue that the state and/or society has a legitimate interest in incetivising procreative unions, probably with the unspoken assumption of the biological parents remaining together to raise the child. You further appear to suggest that marriage in some way solidifies this bond and encourages them to stay together and better raise the next generation of fully functioning citizens.

    Let's say all this is true. The state still shouldn't be incentivising marriage until children are produced, otherwise we're funding people for no benefit to the state.

    If there are no benefits to marriage then the state has no business recognising it let alone regulating it. If there are other benefits (tax, inheritance, legal/medical/financial rights, survivor benefits etc.) then to deny consenting adults A&B those rights, but grant them to consenting adults C&D, based solely on their gender is basic discrimination. The rights are either available to all, or they are solely dependant upon the couple producing a child. There is no logical middle ground.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi March!
      In the secular discussion, the benefits that come with civil marriage are how the government can encourage (not force) a certain behavior. Of all the sexual behaviors in society, some good, some bad, some legal, some illegal, which is the most likely to result in family units, productive future citizens, etc? (a sort of ROI for the government)

      Behaviors have consequences for the future and I argue that it IS logical for the government to think of the future and not just wait around until children happen appear.

      As far as a couple NOT willing or NOT able to have children, they can still be a good example of the “type” of sexual relationship that is procreative.

      Remember that the government does not care who we “love”. A hetero couple can get married for financial reasons or immigration reasons, but may not “love” each other. Why are they granted a marriage license? Because one male & one female are coming together and we know what can happen even if there is no “love”.

      Delete
    2. Hi Ben,

      I would submit that moving the benefits of marriage to the thing society wants to promote (children) is logical and beneficial. All the legal contracts can be signed by any consenting adults (e.g. I would much rather my doctor friend be my medical proxy than my lovely, but ditsy, wife...) and marriage, or the state rewards for it, only becomes a concern for the government if there is a child and both parents agree to live as a family unit (which I guess you think is best for the child), or are already married.

      My personal view is that the aim of government is not the perpetuation of that society, neither is it for the control of population, it is for the benefit of members of that society. Therefore the government have no business taking money from me to incentivise people to breed for what can only be considered its own benefit. But that is probably nowhere the mainstream view of either side of the SSM debate...

      "As far as a couple NOT willing or NOT able to have children, they can still be a good example of the “type” of sexual relationship that is procreative."

      This is a really problematic statement. Do you want me to fund relationships that advertise a 'marriage lifestyle' that you approve of even though it will not, or cannot, give a ROI? Or do you want me to pay gay people to alter/hide/ignore their sexuality to be more procreative? Neither of these are things I want the state to be doing with my money, in my name, and both would be remedied by simply making the state only get involved financially when the things we actually want, children, come on the scene.

      The 'Holy Sacrament' of marriage is for those of a religious persuasion to do with as they choose and the state should be completely hands-off on that. Only where there are legal implications for the participants should the state even be aware of it.

      Delete
  8. I'm reluctant you JUST REALLY DON'T UNDERSTAND. . .

    You seem to think God has the same 'feelings' about sex that YOU do. Sex, as YOU know, I'll bet, is a VERY POWERFUL INSTINCT and was designed to produce new lifestyle, and LOVE and fascination can sometimes take a different direction, whether it's mind biochemistry, or emotional, or a mixture, or whatever. . . "A different path" is rather typical, in characteristics.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You mention design; we really don’t understand what something IS unless we understand what it is designed FOR. See post “Thinking Means Connecting Things”. You can use the blog search engine at the top.

      Delete