Gay Marriage Proposal

[Neurotika]

Even without children being home , traditional forms of marriage have historically served as working models to perpetuate healthy imageI'll be working family of a working family

'traditional' can mean so many things to so many people..you speak of biblical terms or modern terms? gay tradition vs hetero tradition?

traditions such as allowing a man to take his brothers wife or sleep with his female slaves could be considered a very negative tradition...
healthy image? beating your wife used to be traditional..some places have evolved..changing that tradition..others ie. islam, have not.
just because you base a model on something does not mean it is good or right.

and i might suggest that traditions can 'evolve' and morph into something..everyone adding a bit on the way.

"tradition" is nothing more than a habit..and habits, good and bad. can be changed/improved or rejected entirely if they prove detrimental to society.

i see no signs that gays marrying is a detriment to your marriage or ideal of it or anyone elses.

 

[ShackledNation]

It is incorrect to say the government hasthe government has no it's just me no legitimate interest in relationship between consenting adults, at the purpose of government is to further the interest and wellbeing of society, which rest upon the fitness and form of the family unit and the nature of ths culture and relationship between personof the nations constituting the population of the nation

The purpose of the government of the United States of America was NEVER to further the interest and well-being of society. It was meant to protect individual liberty.

 

[ShackledNation]

It goes way further than a separation of church and state. It's a separation of the individual from the state. Will photographers be allowed to decline to provide services to gay couples? Will the baker be able to say he doesn't bake wedding cakes for gay weddings? Will relationship counselors have the freedom to say their religion prevents them from providing those services? How about parents who tell their children that homosexuality is wrong and they should avoid homosexuals? That's where the real problem is, it's not language, it's behavior and control of that behavior.

Yes to all of the above. Nobody is required to provide any service or product to anyone. And I am saying that as a strong supporter of gay marriage. Controlling behavior like that is just as wrong and authoritarian as prohibiting gay marriage in the first place. A disrespect or hatred towards gay people is a cultural and moral problem. You can never legislate morality, and trying to do so does far more harm than good.

See, this is why I repeated say that Same-sex Civil Marriage is not the problem, as that applies to the government. The real "problem" is a class of laws known as Public Accommodation Laws whereby the government makes it illegal for private businesses to discriminate (contrary to the above post, the ARE required to provides goods and services to those they don't want to). The idea that a business can refuse service for any reason is flat out wrong under these laws. Since you are from California, the Public Accommodation law is known as the "Unruh Civil Rights Act" and is reflected in the California Civil Code Section 51:

"51. (a) This section shall be known, and may be cited, as the Unruh
Civil Rights Act.
(b) All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and
equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion,
ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic
information, marital status, or sexual orientation are entitled to
the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities,
privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind
whatsoever."

CA Codes (civ:43-53)​

>>>>

My argument was that the current law is wrong. No business should be forced to serve any customer, just as no customer should be forced to patronize any business. Action must be cooperative and voluntary for it to be moral and just. That does not mean all voluntary and cooperative actions are moral, but all moral actions are voluntary.

 

[varelse]

It is incorrect to say the government hasthe government has no it's just me no legitimate interest in relationship between consenting adults, at the purpose of government is to further the interest and wellbeing of society, which rest upon the fitness and form of the family unit and the nature of ths culture and relationship between personof the nations constituting the population of the nation

The purpose of the government of the United States of America was NEVER to further the interest and well-being of society. It was meant to protect individual liberty.

See: general welfare

That for example is why there are postal roads - because it is beautiful as serving the common good and being beneficial to all

 

[ShackledNation]

It is incorrect to say the government hasthe government has no it's just me no legitimate interest in relationship between consenting adults, at the purpose of government is to further the interest and wellbeing of society, which rest upon the fitness and form of the family unit and the nature of ths culture and relationship between personof the nations constituting the population of the nation

The purpose of the government of the United States of America was NEVER to further the interest and well-being of society. It was meant to protect individual liberty.

See: general welfare

That for example is why there are postal roads - because it is beautiful as serving the common good and being beneficial to all

Government was granted powers intended to maximize the liberty of its citizens. General welfare refers to the use of taxation powers (only to be used for the general welfare and common defense), not the entire purpose of the government itself.

 

[varelse]

The government was also given powers to serve the interest of the Populist and further their well being

If it were solely about liberty we would have something much more akin to anarchy with little more government a military in the police force. We would have no Postal Service

 

[WorldWatcher]

Even without children being home , traditional forms of marriage have historically served as working models to perpetuate healthy imageI'll be working family of a working family

Retired persons without minors in the home still constitute a family unit, and so the same matters apply

Sorry, just because someone is retired doesn't automatically make them a "family".

Now if they are retired and have spouse, then that couple is still legally considered family (which of by having a spouse means they are in a Civil Marriage) - then I agree. Doesn't require that the individual be of different genders.

And I like how you clip out facts that prove your position wrong. Like some states requiring infertility as a condition of Civil Marriage.

>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

It is incorrect to say the government hasthe government has no it's just me no legitimate interest in relationship between consenting adults, at the purpose of government is to further the interest and wellbeing of society, which rest upon the fitness and form of the family unit and the nature of ths culture and relationship between personof the nations constituting the population of the nation

The purpose of the government of the United States of America was NEVER to further the interest and well-being of society. It was meant to protect individual liberty.

See: general welfare

That for example is why there are postal roads - because it is beautiful as serving the common good and being beneficial to all

Yes, of course the purpose of government is not to protect liberty and to ensure justice.


Oh, wait...

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."​

>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

The government was also given powers to serve the interest of the Populist and further their well being

If it were solely about liberty we would have something much more akin to anarchy with little more government a military in the police force. We would have no Postal Service

I agree it's not solely about liberty, which is why there is the requirement inherent in the concept of equal protection and due process that the government must have a compelling government interest in treating like situated groups differently.

So far though no compelling government interest has stood the test of treating law abiding, tax paying, US citizen, infertile, non-related, consenting, adult couples differently based solely on gender.


>>>>

 

[varelse]

And I like how you clip out facts that prove your position wrong. Like some states requiring infertility as a condition of Civil Marriage.

WHAT THE HELL STATE DOES NOT LET PEOPLE MARRY UNLESS THEY ARE UNABLE TO HAVE CHILDREN ?!?!

Seriously what the hell are you talking about And from what orifice are you pulling this stuff ?

 

[varelse]

The purpose of the government of the United States of America was NEVER to further the interest and well-being of society. It was meant to protect individual liberty.

See: general welfare

That for example is why there are postal roads - because it is beautiful as serving the common good and being beneficial to all

Yes, of course the purpose of government is not to protect liberty and to ensure justice.


Oh, wait...

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence>>>>>>>>, promote the general Welfare<<<<<<<<<, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."​

>>>>

 

[varelse]

I get the distinct impression that it is a waste of my time to attempt to have an intelligent discussion with you, and you seem incapable of participating in the intelligent part

 

[WorldWatcher]

And I like how you clip out facts that prove your position wrong. Like some states requiring infertility as a condition of Civil Marriage.

WHAT THE HELL STATE DOES NOT LET PEOPLE MARRY UNLESS THEY ARE UNABLE TO HAVE CHILDREN ?!?!

Arizona, Illinois, Utah, and Wisconsin only allows Civil Marriage in the case of first cousins who hare not senior citizens if they are unable to reproduce because senior citizens are very unlikely to be able to reproduce so for non-seniors infertility is a requirement.

State Laws Regarding Marriages Between First Cousins

Seriously what the hell are you talking about

You made the claim that Civil Marriage was about having children.

I've demonstrated where that was not the case in dismantled that argument two ways. One, fertility has never been a requirement of Civil Marriage. This has been supported both through the judicial process by court review and has never been anything implemented by any governmental legislature (at least here in the United States). Two, in certain States the law requires infertility for certain people before they are allowed to legally Civilly Marry.

"B. Notwithstanding subsection A, first cousins may marry if both are sixty-five years of age or older or if one or both first cousins are under sixty-five years of age, upon approval of any superior court judge in the state if proof has been presented to the judge that one of the cousins is unable to reproduce."​

Arizona Revised Statutes - Title 25 Marital and Domestic Relations - Section 25-101 Void and prohibited marriages - Legal Research
State Laws Regarding Marriages Between First Cousins

And from what orifice are you pulling this stuff ?

So now correctly referencing judical decisions, legislative action, and the law is "pulling stuff out of an orifice"?

I get the distinct impression that it is a waste of my time to attempt to have an intelligent discussion with you, and you seem incapable of participating in the intelligent part

Sorry you feel that way.

But were you really trying to have an "intelligent" conversation or were you just interested in presenting your opinion - which of course is all that you've presented.

What is frustrating for you, and I can understand that, is that you trot out the same tired arguments. Arguments that have failed in the judicial branch, failed in the legislative branch, and have begun to fail at the ballot box.

Not to worry though, I haven't been posting to change your mind as I know that is probably not possible. I've been providing counter arguments using logic and reason mostly for others that are reading the thread.

You realize there is an old debate axiom that the first to sling personal insults does so because they realize they've lost the debate.

Good luck in life to you sir. It's been most enjoyable.


>>>>

 

[varelse]

You made the claim that Civil Marriage was about having children.

cite

 

[WorldWatcher]

You made the claim that Civil Marriage was about having children.

cite

Go back and read the thread, you were the one with the position that it is the government's job to social engineer and shape the family unit and to perpetuate the same society. To go a little trek'y, the government can do this because "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few".

The purpose of marriage and its recognition by the state is to shape the form of the family unit which is the foundation upon which society is built. The purpose of the state is to maintain and perpetuate that same society. Ergo the state must pursue such policies as serve the greater interest of society

I don't agree with social authoritarians that it is the governments job to "shape the family" unit unless there is a compelling reason to do so.

I also don't agree that it is government's job to ensure that the same society is perpetuated. Society today is not the same as in 1776, not the same as in 1861, not the same as in 1967, and not the same as in 2004. Societies change, government should exist to provide structure and the process for that change in a peaceful manner. Not to ensure that change does not occur.

>>>>

 

[varelse]

If you cannot see the compelling interest in preventing crime and other social ills, then rational discussion is impossible

 

[WorldWatcher]

If you cannot see the compelling interest in preventing crime...

Since allowing same-sex couples the same legal protections as different-sex couples would not take Civil Marriage away from different-sex couples - then this is a reach.

Massachusetts has had Same-sex Civil Marriage since 2004 and in almost every category the number of crimes descreased in the 2004-2001 period.

Sorry, that boogeyman don't hunt.

Link -->> Massachusetts Crime Statistics

and other social ills,

No I don't believe it's the government job to address "social ills" without a compelling government reason. "Social ills" change over time and even though some may feel that their position is the morally superior one and therefore justifies big government intervention just because they say so, doesn't mean that the "social ill" they fear should warrant big government solutions.

In the past interracial Civil Marriage was considered a "social ill", and as previously pointed out most of the same arguments used today to define Civil Marriage based on gender where the same arguments used to define Civil Marriage based on race. So while many in the past viewed interracial Civil Marriage as a "social ill", today we look back on them as - well - less then rational.

then rational discussion is impossible

When talking to ingrained social authoritarians who think it is governments job to support their views of how society should function, I agree. Liberty, freedom, and justice are concepts often foreign to the mind set of those who want government to be responsible for social engineering.

Which of course ends up boiling down to hypocritical positions:

Social Engineering I Agree With = Good

Social Engineering I Disagree With = Bad​

If social authoritarians (either from the extreme left or the extreme right) are going to support social engineering on the one had, then they better be ready for the same thing from the opposition.


>>>>

 

[varelse]

If the purpose of government or not to address social ills, we would not have police, let alone assistance for the poor, and we never would have seen forced desegregation

 

[WorldWatcher]

If the purpose of government or not to address social ills, we would not have police, let alone assistance for the poor, and we never would have seen forced desegregation

Don't confuse smaller, limited government with anarchy, they are not the same.


>>>>

 

[varelse]

It is you who has made it a matter of absolutes throughout this entire discussion. You began with the premise that it was somehow only about liberty and that's the state and no positive action or function outside of somehow making men free through it's very existence