|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The next person I hear...
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
But the whole point, as IngoB has already pointed out on this thread, is that there are competing conceptions of good and harm in this arena, and the Church's is just as real as anyone else's.
Just as real, perhaps. But not just as justifiable in a secular society. The state has a duty to protect its citizens equally under the law. If the RCC is lobbying against doing so (as it is in this case), then while its view is just as real, it is not just as legitimate. Indeed it is not legitimate at all in a secular state.
Actually, I think you'll find that it is up to the body politic of any democratic state to determine what are "legitimate" concepts for public polity for itself - not you.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
If people don't like what the Church is saying, they can just ignore it - or fight it. But if people do hear and agree with it, and want to exercise their democratic rights in that direction, what would you have happen - for them to be taken in for political re-programming for having reached the "wrong" conclusion?
No, the Supreme Court would strike it down. As it has. As it should for any law(s) that create inequality under the law without good cause as considered from a secular, not religious, point of view. Because First Amendment.
I have no idea if this is a fair assessment of the way things are and must be in the USA - but please remember that there are other juridictions in the world. And that whether the USA's not previously having recognised same-sex marriage was an act of "creating equality" is very much the question being debated, not something you can take for granted as a premiss.
What do you think, for example, should have happened if a clear majority in the recent plebiscite in Ireland had voted against the notion that same-sex partners could marry? What if a lot of people have voted no in part because they'd been persuaded by the sorts of arguments the Church was using, and/or the natural law arguments IngoB has used in this thread - should those votes have been discounted? Should the Church and others arguing these sorts of stances not have been allowed to campaign in the first place? Should only those advocating for the change have been allowed to influence opinion?
Because it seems to me very much as if these are natural implications of the arguments you and others are putting here.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I made some moments ago.
Well, I'd rather you answer my question, but I read your recent posts and you don't quite address my query.
First, You keep referring to speech and that is not what we are objecting to.
Second, I haven't read everything on this thread that IngoB posts. Mainly because his foundation is based on two things that are beliefs, not concrete. A: "natural" law and B: Because the Vatican says so. Absolutely no one has presented any way equal marriage harms anyone besides "Because it will"!
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
the state has assigned a whole range of benefits to marriage. If more people get access to them, then we all (including straight couples) will end up footing the bill.
So, money is your problem? My, but what good, Christian Ethics you have grandma.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Originally marriage was incentivised by the state, because the state got something crucial for its survival back from it: new citizens.
And again I cry bullshit. Marriage became a thing because money. Marriage was first formalised for the rich. It wasn't until the poor became middle class that anybody, including the church, gave a shit about them.
People produced children long before there were marriages and do so now outside of marriage. If proofs were boats, yours would sink on dry land.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Third, "gay marriage" is not acceptable because homosexual acts are sinful, according to the RCC.
Then how about we keep that opinion in the RCC?
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
However, the state should not encourage sin in its populace
Bullshit. The state is not about sin. Its laws are for the protection of its citizens and itself. And again, again, again, you've no proof equal marriage harms anyone.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
What sticks in the craw is the forced and politicised redefinition of what most of us have always understood marriage to be.
Why does this matter? Anti-discrimination laws changed what the rights of minorities were always understood to be. Is that wrong as well?
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
The argument is not about justice, fairness or human rights.
Well, at least this is honest.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
It is about murdering the language for political reasons.
No, it isn't. First, language evolves. Can't even properly read Shakespeare without translations.
Second, it is not political, it is social. As society progresses, rights expand. The language expands with it. Don't like what marriage means?
You come up with a new word for heterosexual, approved by "conservative" religion unions.
You hate the murdering of language? I will believe this when I see you campaign as vociferously for the abuse of words such as decimate, literally and irony.
And lastly, curse you, Chesterbelloc. You've gone and made me address Bingo. Now, if he doesn't ignore me, he will repeat his non-proofs and I will get a thousand word essay.
A tale,
Told by IngoB,
Full of unsound and stagnant points,
Signifying nothing.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
Is this thing on?
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Because, CB, equal marriage laws do not impinge on anyone else other then the people they enable to get married.
No, with respect, Karl - you don't just get to say this and have it taken as a given. The whole argument is precisley about whether gay marriage is indeed a right and whether it is good for society as a whole. For the arguments to the contrary, read some of IngoB's posts. You don't have to accept those or any other arguments, of course - but you do have to acknowledge that there are other arguments.
I beg to differ. It matters not whether it's good for society as a whole; we do not, in free societies, progress along the lines of things being forbidden unless they're proved to be beneficial, and everything not expressly permitted being banned. We proceed in the opposite direction; everything not expressly banned is permitted, and things can only be banned when it is shown that they are harmful to society as a whole. The onus is not on me to prove equal marriage would cause no harm; it is on its opponents to prove that it would, and so far I've seen little beyond hypothesis and slippery slopes.
quote:
There's a label for sneaking the conclusion of an argument into the premises you claim to be arguing that conclusion from: I know you've heard of it, but you don't seem to realise you've committed it.
Indeed, but my conclusion isn't "it does no harm" - my conclusion is "there's no reason to ban it"; "it does no harm" is one of my premises and it's up to you to disprove it.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Arguments in the public sphere don't refer to things being "sinful" because that is a moral judgement about whether something is bad. It's bad in and of itself, regardless of whether it has any other bad effects besides displeasing God.
And in fact the distinction between a moral judgement and evidence that something is practically bad is exactly what has emerged in all the US court cases leading up to the Supreme Court case. Time and again, opponents of same-sex marriage said "it will have this bad effect, and this bad effect", and time and again judges ended up saying "no, you haven't actually got any evidence of that, all that you're left with is a moral objection, and the State isn't here to implement your moral objections".
The State is not there to stop people from sinning. The State can be there to stop people from causing harm. Despite the fact that Christians are fond of saying that when God bans something he must have a good reason/is doing it for our own good, there is a fundamental conceptual difference between the two.
(In fact, you can turn that argument around and say that if the reason God bans things is because of their potential to harm, the lack of evidence that homosexuality causes harm is as good an indicator as any that people haven't been understanding God's views on homosexuality properly...)
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I agree that a big part of the desire for same sex marriage, is about gay people wanting the secular state to recognise them and their relationships as just as worthy as straight peoples.
I think that the RC church and its believers arguing that they opposed same sex marriage, on the grounds that they believe physical relationships between people of the same sex are sinful and should not be encouraged, would be a lot more honest than a semantic argument about the word marriage.
The semantic argument fails, because it has never been the case that a secular marriage intended to be/do the same thing as a religious marriage. So it being not the same thing in a slightly different way, does not change the definition of a religious marriage.
As to the omgwhatshallicallmymarriagetoshowitsproper issues, I have a Roman Catholic marriage, or I have a sacremental marriage ought to cover it.
The procreation argument for refusing gay marriage is ridiculous, even when notionally using scripture to support the position. If you are claiming a revelation from God, you don't really need to justify it from logic anyway, so the sophistry involved seems pointless. However, it is even more ridiculous when spouted by people who apparently think it is logical, without reference to any revelatory text, and I suspect they would also tell you that animals also don't have sex except to reproduce. And they would be wrong.
[ 15. July 2015, 06:38: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Arguments in the public sphere don't refer to things being "sinful" because that is a moral judgement about whether something is bad. It's bad in and of itself, regardless of whether it has any other bad effects besides displeasing God.
And in fact the distinction between a moral judgement and evidence that something is practically bad is exactly what has emerged in all the US court cases leading up to the Supreme Court case. Time and again, opponents of same-sex marriage said "it will have this bad effect, and this bad effect", and time and again judges ended up saying "no, you haven't actually got any evidence of that, all that you're left with is a moral objection, and the State isn't here to implement your moral objections".
The State is not there to stop people from sinning. The State can be there to stop people from causing harm. Despite the fact that Christians are fond of saying that when God bans something he must have a good reason/is doing it for our own good, there is a fundamental conceptual difference between the two.
(In fact, you can turn that argument around and say that if the reason God bans things is because of their potential to harm, the lack of evidence that homosexuality causes harm is as good an indicator as any that people haven't been understanding God's views on homosexuality properly...)
That last paragraph is indeed the reason that even when I was a card carrying evangelical I struggled with what was taken to be God's view on the matter, and primarily why I came in time to completely reject the traditional view.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Second, even if one has a moral objection to homosexuality, one can still be grown-up enough to recognise that the state has a role in regulating/encouraging stable relationships,
No one denies this. What sticks in the craw is the forced and politicised redefinition of what most of us have always understood marriage to be. The argument is not about justice, fairness or human rights. Those points are not in dispute. It is about murdering the language for political reasons. [/QB]
Suck it up. Hey, if you like, you can stick to your definition and chunter about how same sex couples "aren't really married"; you can write letters to the press in green ink if it helps. Just as long as you don't extend that to treating them differently in a commercial or official capacity; i.e. you don't enforce your disquiet on everyone else.
Easy really.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
The procreation argument for refusing gay marriage is ridiculous, even when notionally using scripture to support the position. If you are claiming a revelation from God, you don't really need to justify it from logic anyway, so the sophistry involved seems pointless. However, it is even more ridiculous when spouted by people who apparently think it is logical, without reference to any revelatory text, and I suspect they would also tell you that animals also don't have sex except to reproduce. And they would be wrong.
For some reason IngoB refuses to accept that his argument is of revelationary divine knowledge and wants to continue with the delusion that he can argue for it with logic.
As we all know, homosexuality is common throughout nature - but then so are many other behaviours. The idea that nature somehow supports exclusively heterosexual marriage, or that sex in nature is always reproductive is disproved in an instant.
But then throughout this thread Ingo has avoided discussing these points. He has avoided discussing the fact that my marriage contract says nothing about children (apparently already dividing civil marriage from RCC marriage). He has avoided the many different human cultures which do not arrange themselves in the heterosexual marriage norm. He has avoided discussing whether or not the ancients even saw this as normative.
Because ultimately IngoB only wants to discuss what he wants to discuss on the parameters he sets.
And frankly, it is wearing really thin.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Suck it up. Hey, if you like, you can stick to your definition and chunter about how same sex couples "aren't really married"; you can write letters to the press in green ink if it helps. Just as long as you don't extend that to treating them differently in a commercial or official capacity; i.e. you don't enforce your disquiet on everyone else.
Easy really.
Right, exactly. If you want to claim a moral position that is at odds with the civil law, then you have to carry the cross of that profession. Some jobs are no longer open to you. Hard cheese.
That's not unfair discrimination, that's just you feeling the sharp-end of your beliefs. All beliefs have consequences, you have to count the cost.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
How can it be murdering the language, anyway? The word "marry" is not remotely exclusive to the joining of one human male with one human female. You can marry flavours, marry a dress with an accessory - pretty well anything that you could "match" or "join" you could also "marry".
I haven't seen anyone complaining that marrying various inanimate objects with each other has done horrible violence to the English language, so it's a little hard to take seriously the proposition that joining two human beings together is outside the scope of the word.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Thing is - gay marriage has been introduced, and nowhere has the RCC been forced to marry anyone.
Yet. Gay marriage has just been pushed through for a few years in a few countries. The Church thinks in decades and centuries, not in the mayfly cycles of democratic elections.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'd be very surprised if this bogus argument was not also used by every group throughout history campaigning against social change - including the abolition of slavery, the overthrow of Jim Crow, woman's votes etc. It is a pretty tired argument.
How is this argument "bogus"? You'd have to argue that granting marriage status to a couple provides a net financial gain to the state. Otherwise the logic that extending benefits to more couples means greater costs to the state, and hence all of us, obviously holds. As for "tired", what is really tired is the endless litany of past civil rights glories as if they were supporting your case. Well, they don't.
Here's the famous "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" of one Martin Luther King Jr.:
quote:
Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may well ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all." Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law.
Oh noes, the hero of the Civil Rights movement quoted what to justify disobedience to state law? Why, it is St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas and their definitions based on the traditional understanding of the revealed and natural moral law. (tip of the hat to Rorate Caeli)
The things is, we really do not mean the same thing any longer when we say "marriage". I mean what has been the consensus for basically ever across the globe, but at a minimum what has been the consensus for about 1.5 millennia in the West. You mean what people have come up with in the last 60-100 years or so in the West. Now, the state (or really the judiciary, at least in the USA) has for some inane reason decided to force laws upon us that can only have a chance to be just by your definition of marriage, but cannot be just or for that matter even sane by the traditional definition of marriage.
Now, why is the state (or the lords of law) doing this? If it really is about benefits, then why is the state not rather fixing the benefit system? Why is the state by virtue of contentious law forcing a re-definition of marriage down our throats? This is in the end ideological warfare. The state could have staid neutral and simply adjusted its provisions. But no, it had to heavy in on one side against the other, de facto making the new understanding of marriage mandatory (for otherwise one has to declare the state and its actions as unjust and tyrannical).
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Again, that is just your opinion. Other people live in this country who do not agree, why should you have any special say on the matter?
I should have a special say on the matter because I speak the truth. However, in practice, I simply have my say, as you have yours. And the reason why I have my say right now is to point out that introducing "gay marriage" is not simply "socially neutral" to people who think like me (as was being claimed).
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
As a matter of fact, secular states are not in the business of defining moral sins.
The state is however very much in the business of regulating society by law according to certain ethical principles it is adopting. The distinction between "crime" and "sin" is certainly valuable, for many reasons. But not for pretending that only the latter is a matter of "morals".
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
First, nobody is asking you.
That's not how democracy works. I don't need to wait for permission to speak from a tyrant or king. So far.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Second, even if one has a moral objection to homosexuality, one can still be grown-up enough to recognise that the state has a role in regulating/encouraging stable relationships, even of people who live lives we personally find abhorrant.
No. The state has no business at all to regulate or encourage relationships, stable or otherwise, unless that significantly impacts the common good. The state is to care for the common good, it is not a micromanager for your individual good. If you want a relationship, have one. If you want it stable, make it so. What has the state got to do with all that? The state has grabbed hold of the marriage business because of procreation and inheritance, basically. If the state now has a different agenda, then it should make that explicit, instead of squeezing that agenda through an old body of law it created for other purposes.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I happen to believe gambling is an evil far worse even than the evil you appear to think homosexuality to be. At the same time, I can see the logic of the state legislating for horse-racing and other forms of gambling.
If I get you correctly, I should see "gay marriage" as the attempt of the state to minimise the harm done by homosexuality?!
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Thus spake Ingo:
quote:
Second, the state has assigned a whole range of benefits to marriage. If more people get access to them, then we all (including straight couples) will end up footing the bill. Originally marriage was incentivised by the state, because the state got something crucial for its survival back from it: new citizens. "Gay marriages" do not do that. So there is no automatic rationale to incentivise them as well. I think the state should incentivise directly what it wants, without all this referencing of romantic and intimate relationships, which are really private matters.
(emphasis mine)
Just for fun, a thought experiment: let's say that all LGBT folks on the planet see the error of their ways, and miraculously become straight. ISTM the financial effects on society would be no different than if they'd been straight all along, and entered into straight marriages.
Many same-sex couples have kids: via previous relationships, adoption, in vitro fertilization and surrogacy, or foster care. ISTM they're as incentivized as anyone else.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
I'm prepared to bet that none of the arid scholars who instructed Ingo B when he was received into the RC either used or tolerated a word such as incentivise.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Yet. Gay marriage has just been pushed through for a few years in a few countries. The Church thinks in decades and centuries, not in the mayfly cycles of democratic elections.
Whatever. I won't even dignify that with any response.
quote:
How is this argument "bogus"? You'd have to argue that granting marriage status to a couple provides a net financial gain to the state. Otherwise the logic that extending benefits to more couples means greater costs to the state, and hence all of us, obviously holds. As for "tired", what is really tired is the endless litany of past civil rights glories as if they were supporting your case. Well, they don't.
US Treasury estimates show that there is a net gain from marriage. Yet again your assertions are shown to be bogus.
People down the centuries have tried to argue that other people should not have the rights they enjoy because of a cost to the state. And this has been shown to be bogus every time. You don't have an argument. It is bollocks.
quote:
Here's the famous "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" of one Martin Luther King Jr.:
Fuck-all to do with anything.
quote:
The things is, we really do not mean the same thing any longer when we say "marriage". I mean what has been the consensus for basically ever across the globe, but at a minimum what has been the consensus for about 1.5 millennia in the West.
You keep asserting this and I keep telling you it isn't true. But you're not actually interested in discussion and facts, are you? You just want to keep asserting things as if they are self evident.
quote:
You mean what people have come up with in the last 60-100 years or so in the West. Now, the state (or really the judiciary, at least in the USA) has for some inane reason decided to force laws upon us that can only have a chance to be just by your definition of marriage, but cannot be just or for that matter even sane by the traditional definition of marriage.
Slavery ended at a particular point in time. Until that point, slavery had been traditional.
All bad things have to end some time, all progressive things have to start some time.
quote:
Now, why is the state (or the lords of law) doing this? If it really is about benefits, then why is the state not rather fixing the benefit system? Why is the state by virtue of contentious law forcing a re-definition of marriage down our throats?
Nobody is forcing anything down anyone's throats. Get over yourself.
quote:
This is in the end ideological warfare. The state could have staid neutral and simply adjusted its provisions. But no, it had to heavy in on one side against the other, de facto making the new understanding of marriage mandatory (for otherwise one has to declare the state and its actions as unjust and tyrannical).
Explain exactly how the state could have avoided 'coming down on one side or another' on an issue like this. Either gay marriage is legal or it isn't.
quote:
I should have a special say on the matter because I speak the truth.
Oh my goodness, you are a complete prick, aren't you.
NO YOU DON'T. I don't have to listen to your truth because I think it is total bollocks and you have no power over me.
quote:
However, in practice, I simply have my say, as you have yours. And the reason why I have my say right now is to point out that introducing "gay marriage" is not simply "socially neutral" to people who think like me (as was being claimed).
Nope, you've had your say over and over and over again. You've lost the argument, you just can't let it go.
quote:
The state is however very much in the business of regulating society by law according to certain ethical principles it is adopting. The distinction between "crime" and "sin" is certainly valuable, for many reasons. But not for pretending that only the latter is a matter of "morals".
Bullshit.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
That's not how democracy works. I don't need to wait for permission to speak from a tyrant or king. So far.
Fair societies make rules for everyone, even if self-righteous pricks like to tell the rest of society that they have the truth and that certain laws are inherrently sinful. Because that is how free liberal societies work.
quote:
No. The state has no business at all to regulate or encourage relationships, stable or otherwise, unless that significantly impacts the common good. The state is to care for the common good, it is not a micromanager for your individual good. If you want a relationship, have one. If you want it stable, make it so. What has the state got to do with all that? The state has grabbed hold of the marriage business because of procreation and inheritance, basically. If the state now has a different agenda, then it should make that explicit, instead of squeezing that agenda through an old body of law it created for other purposes.
Bullshit. Let's just add law to the long list of things you clearly know nothing about.
quote:
If I get you correctly, I should see "gay marriage" as the attempt of the state to minimise the harm done by homosexuality?!
You don't get me correctly, because clearly you are a prick. God help anyone who lives anywhere near you.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
If I get you correctly, I should see "gay marriage" as the attempt of the state to minimise the harm done by homosexuality?!
Hang on. Isn't that what St Paul said about "marriage"?
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Thing is - gay marriage has been introduced, and nowhere has the RCC been forced to marry anyone.
Yet. Gay marriage has just been pushed through for a few years in a few countries. The Church thinks in decades and centuries, not in the mayfly cycles of democratic elections.
i) Divorce has been "pushed through" for far more years and in many more countries. In how many instances has the RCC been forced to carry out marriages involving a divorced party?
ii) Our Lord and Saviour took just three years to carry out his mission. Shouldn't the RCC and other churches too, take a leaf out of his book when it comes to decisiveness?
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
As to the benefits of marriage:
Nolo.com has a list of US marriage benefits, both legal and practical. Most have nothing to do with children.
AIUI, they were also some of the reasons that same-sex couples wanted legal marriage--especially for things like hospital visiting and making medical decisions for their partner. They previously had to go through a lot of money and hassle to get the same legal rights that straight married couples get automatically.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Why should the modern state control marriage rights at all? What business is it of the state what your intimate relationships are like?
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I think the state should get out of the marriage business and deliver benefits independent of it according to its purposes.
You have made this point a few times, and it seems to have gone unanswered, so I'll bite.
Your stance seems to be that 'marriage' should be delivered solely by the church*, and the state should administer the practicalities of benefits / inheritance etc. totally independently from that. I hope I have you right.
The reason that things aren't like this is that the vast majority of people don't want it. They don't want to neatly divide their relationship up into a secular part (state/civil 'partnership') and a spiritual part (marriage). They want something holistic that spans the breadth of society. And that is traditionally what marriage has been, and continues to be. It is not just religious, it is not just secular: it is both. You and others have complained about the word 'marriage' being redefined. To make it refer only to the church-sponsored bit is as radical a redefinition as allowing people of the same gender to marry.
Marriage is something both sacred and secular, and I'm pretty sure that is the way the vast majority of people want it to be. You might want it to be only sacred; SSM or not, that's not going to happen.
So the only question that remains is this: should this broad, sacred AND secular institution only be available to opposite-gender couples or same-sex-couples as well? And given that its definition has for a long time come from both religious institutions AND the state, I cannot see any good argument as to why it should not be available to all - and that has nothing to do with personal approval or not as to whether specific individuals should get married. It is simply saying that they have the right to, given societal consensus of what 'marriage' is.
I know you don't like society's definition of marriage. But as far as I can tell, the reasons for that apply just as strongly for non-Catholic couples as it does for same-sex couples. None of them are Catholic couples. I don't see you suggesting that protestant or atheist opposite-sex couples aren't married, why shift the goalpoasts for same-sex couples?
* And presumably other religious institutions as well? I guess you would be able to have 'atheist' marriages too? Though I'm not sure how this would all work in practice where you have mixed-belief marriages.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Point of information: I know at least one Roman Catholic same-sex couple who want a civil marriage.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
jbohn
Shipmate
# 8753
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Thing is - gay marriage has been introduced, and nowhere has the RCC been forced to marry anyone.
Yet. Gay marriage has just been pushed through for a few years in a few countries. The Church thinks in decades and centuries, not in the mayfly cycles of democratic elections.
Can you show us any evidence that the church has ever been forced to perform any marriage?
At least here in the US (and in other countries, as I understand it), clergy can refuse to officiate at a wedding for any reason they like, or for no reason given at all - this hasn't changed due to recent events. I know at least one prospective couple some years ago (opposite-sex) who were told that the clergyman they asked did not wish to officiate at their wedding because he did not feel that a) they were ready to be married, or b) that they really understood what marriage meant in the view of the church.
No one "forced" the church to do anything. The couple were free to find another church, or to get a justice of the peace to officiate. The world did not end, and no one else's marriage was impacted in the least. (Pretty similar, I expect, to what would happen if a same-sex couple asked a Catholic priest to officiate at their wedding - he would likely decline, and they would go somewhere else.)
--------------------
We are punished by our sins, not for them.
--Elbert Hubbard
Posts: 989 | From: East of Eden, west of St. Paul | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
You know, IngoB, that was desperate and hilarious.
Twisting the words of of a man defying oppression into a defence of oppression is either pathetic or subtle genius.
You've no worry about your future; if your current situation fails, you have a brilliant career in making pretzels.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Thing is - gay marriage has been introduced, and nowhere has the RCC been forced to marry anyone.
Yet. Gay marriage has just been pushed through for a few years in a few countries. The Church thinks in decades and centuries, not in the mayfly cycles of democratic elections.
If that is actually true I can cite the horrors of the Inquisition as reasons to doubt the moral judgement of the Catholic Church, seeing as by its way of looking at time it only recently decided executing people for perceived offenses against the faith is a bad idea.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Jbohn and RuthW,
I think you have proven IngoB's point.
Torture. The RCC have been forced to go against something they thought morally right. And forced conversion, enslaving native populations, OMG! The list goes on.
The RCC are repressed. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
i) Divorce has been "pushed through" for far more years and in many more countries. In how many instances has the RCC been forced to carry out marriages involving a divorced party?
First, and foremost, the situation is different. One can argue that not allowing "gay marriages" is against the state-declared intention to not allow discrimination based on sex. Divorce does not similarly bring a protected characteristic into play. So from the fact that the Church has not been challenged over divorce through the civil law does not follow that she won't be over "gay marriage". The whole rights ideology plays into "gay marriage" in a way that it just doesn't for divorce.
Second, the English part of the RCC famously was forced to do just that, marry a divorced man. Admittedly, since the decadent politician in question, one Henry VIII, couldn't make Rome submit to his desires, he simply split off the local RC branch and so we now have the Anglicans. In more recent times, there has been much ado about accepting the "remarried" to the Eucharist. It would be unfair to blame the state for causing that mess directly. Nevertheless, it is de facto the disparity between secular and religious law which is putting the Church under a lot of pressure here. It's "bottom up" from her own marginally faithful, rather than "top down" from the state. But the expectations and practices bubbling up from the bottom there were of course fostered by prevailing state law.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Jbohn and RuthW,
I think you have proven IngoB's point.
Torture. The RCC have been forced to go against something they thought morally right. And forced conversion, enslaving native populations, OMG! The list goes on.
The RCC are repressed.
This is interesting - they were burning people for what, a 1000 years. Well, it wouldn't have been good to rush to judgment.
I suppose secular states do change things quite quickly, after all, the treatment of married women as property was abolished in a few decades, and then they got the vote, crumbs, precipitate or what.
There is a strong sense of pique here, that events are out of the control of those who used to control, and probably think they still should.
As my granny used to say, in her cups, sed fugit interea fugit irreparabile tempus. (Meanwhile, irretrievable time flees).
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Second, the English part of the RCC famously was forced to do just that, marry a divorced man. Admittedly, since the decadent politician in question,
that is when the RCC were the state church. Now they are not and you should rejoice stead of messing in civil matters.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
and so we now have the Anglicans.
the horror
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
In more recent times, there has been much ado about accepting the "remarried" to the Eucharist.
Sorry, annulment makes bullshit of this argument.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
If I get you correctly, I should see "gay marriage" as the attempt of the state to minimise the harm done by homosexuality?!
Hang on. Isn't that what St Paul said about "marriage"?
Snerk.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Second, the English part of the RCC famously was forced to do just that, marry a divorced man. Admittedly, since the decadent politician in question, one Henry VIII, couldn't make Rome submit to his desires,
I think that you will find it was an annulment, which the RCC assures us is not divorce at all, no definitely not. You also seem to be missing out the part where the Pope was being lent on heavily by Catherine of Aragon's nephew so there's hardly just the one politician in that particular mess.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Given the general discussion and particularly this:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Why should the modern state control marriage rights at all? What business is it of the state what your intimate relationships are like?
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I think the state should get out of the marriage business and deliver benefits independent of it according to its purposes.
Probably the right thing in is for churches to get out of the marriage business, not the state. Marriages shall be registered by the state, and churches may do their own thing, but without legal status, only church status. Thus get married and then do church about it, or not.
Of course, the tax people in Canada declare a cohabitting couple equivalent to married after a year together and income tax is assessed accordingly, and benefits from work are assigned based on a form. Separation and divorce laws appear to somewhat apply to a separating common-law couple, with the general movement being toward them being treated identically to married, though not there yet AFAIK. Family is who you say it is and put on a form in most cases. An employer, ofr example, is misbehaving to ask if a person is married or not. Nor can age or orientation be enquired.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I made some moments ago.
Well, I'd rather you answer my question, but I read your recent posts and you don't quite address my query.
First, You keep referring to speech and that is not what we are objecting to.
No idea what you mean. Could you elaborate?
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
This article appears to be useful; Suicide related ideation and behavior among Canadian gay and bisexual men. Sample size of more than 8000.
quote:
Suicide ideation and attempts were positively associated with each individual marginalization indicator (verbal violence, physical violence, bullying, sexual violence and work discrimination) and psychosocial health problems (smoking, party drugs, depression, anxiety, STIs, HIV risk and HIV). Furthermore, prevalence of suicide ideation and attempts increased with each added psychosocial health problem.
Full acceptance of gay people reduces negative health outcomes. So those of you who are being assholes on this, please stop being assholes on this.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
The onus is not on me to prove equal marriage would cause no harm; it is on its opponents to prove that it would, and so far I've seen little beyond hypothesis and slippery slopes.
To be honest, I'm not sure whether the burden of proof rests more heavily on one side than the other - although, traditionally those advocating for change do bear a greater evidential burden. But let's lay that aside.
All I'm really arguing against is the idea that the Church should not allowed to attempt to influence the decision one way or another - especially on grounds which beg the very question, like "But your side is denying gays the right to marry!" Let's have an open and frank debate and let the process work itself out in whatever way the particular society in question has for that (in Ireland, it was a plebiscite) rather than trying to shame-silence one side of the argument in advance.
I asked this of mousethief and I'd like to ask you the same thing: quote:
What do you think, for example, should have happened if a clear majority in the recent plebiscite in Ireland had voted against the notion that same-sex partners could marry? What if a lot of people have voted no in part because they'd been persuaded by the sorts of arguments the Church was using, and/or the natural law arguments IngoB has used in this thread - should those votes have been discounted? Should the Church and others arguing these sorts of stances not have been allowed to campaign in the first place? Should only those advocating for the change have been allowed to influence opinion?
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Of course if Ireland had decided to hold a referendum, as it did, it was bound to act in accordance with the results of that referendum. It wouldn't stop me thinking that the Irish government and people had made collectively an oppressive decision.
I do not think this is about "rights". It is not about demonstrating that gay people have a "right" to marry. It's about freedoms. If gay people want to marry, then it is up to those who would so frame the law to prevent them to present a reason for doing so - and at that, in a free secular country - a reason that doesn't boil down to "it's against my religion". Which would be why the Irish people would have made the wrong decision had they voted against. And presumably why, despite the almost proverbial strength of the Irish RCC, they voted for.
The burden of proof is always on the person making an assertion. The assertion is "this will harm society". It is up to the asserter to demonstrate that this is the case. Usual points about proving negatives apply here.
Tell me, again, why YOUR religious beliefs should tell SOMEONE ELSE WHO DOESN'T SHARE THEM how to live their private lives in a way that actually has bugger all effect on you, with the force of law. That's really the underlying point here. Stop trying to use the law to oppress my friends. You've no fucking right to do this, any more than the local mosque would have the right to force me not to eat bacon sandwiches. Simple as that.
[ 15. July 2015, 18:53: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
That's really the underlying point here. Stop trying to use the law to oppress my friends. You've no fucking right to do this, any more than the local mosque would have the right to force me not to eat bacon sandwiches. Simple as that.
Amen
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Tell me, again, why YOUR religious beliefs should tell SOMEONE ELSE WHO DOESN'T SHARE THEM how to live their private lives in a way that actually has bugger all effect on you, with the force of law.
It's not quite true that someone else getting married has "bugger all effect on you" - marriage has modest financial benefits associated with tax-free transfers between spouses, inheritance and the like.
To the extent that making marriage available to gay couples offers these financial benefits to those couples, it represents a cost to the state (and so has a small effect on everyone else).
The bureaucratic assumptions that come along with marriage - next-of-kin rights in hospitals, intestacy, banking and whatever - don't impose a cost on anyone.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Tell me, again, why YOUR religious beliefs should tell SOMEONE ELSE WHO DOESN'T SHARE THEM how to live their private lives in a way that actually has bugger all effect on you, with the force of law.
It's not quite true that someone else getting married has "bugger all effect on you" - marriage has modest financial benefits associated with tax-free transfers between spouses, inheritance and the like.
To the extent that making marriage available to gay couples offers these financial benefits to those couples, it represents a cost to the state (and so has a small effect on everyone else).
The bureaucratic assumptions that come along with marriage - next-of-kin rights in hospitals, intestacy, banking and whatever - don't impose a cost on anyone.
Tell you what - if CB can quantify how much equal marriage costs him I'll write him a bloody cheque. But as has been pointed out, in his perfect world, they'd all be straight and be costing him the same, just in straight marriages.
[ 15. July 2015, 19:08: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
jbohn
Shipmate
# 8753
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
It's not quite true that someone else getting married has "bugger all effect on you" - marriage has modest financial benefits associated with tax-free transfers between spouses, inheritance and the like.
To the extent that making marriage available to gay couples offers these financial benefits to those couples, it represents a cost to the state (and so has a small effect on everyone else).
While this may be true, it's also irrelevant - how does affording same-sex couples the right to marry affect anyone else to any greater degree than allowing opposite-sex couples to marry? (Other than purely by number.)
--------------------
We are punished by our sins, not for them.
--Elbert Hubbard
Posts: 989 | From: East of Eden, west of St. Paul | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
No idea what you mean. Could you elaborate?
What I linked to was representatives of the RCC campaigning for, and sending money to, the creation of a law inhibiting equal marriage.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I think the state should get out of the marriage business and deliver benefits independent of it according to its purposes.
The state should get out of the business you have claimed is so vital to its interest?
[ 15. July 2015, 19:28: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
It's not quite true that someone else getting married has "bugger all effect on you" - marriage has modest financial benefits associated with tax-free transfers between spouses, inheritance and the like.
To the extent that making marriage available to gay couples offers these financial benefits to those couples, it represents a cost to the state (and so has a small effect on everyone else).
Please try to get your facts right before making wild assertions. Like anything else, marriage has a cost and a benefit to society. Overall, studies show that there is an overall financial benefit - so even if there is a slight cost of tax benefits, this is overwhelmed by the benefits that the state gets. If you don't believe me, try looking at the studies rather than posting rubbish.
quote:
The bureaucratic assumptions that come along with marriage - next-of-kin rights in hospitals, intestacy, banking and whatever - don't impose a cost on anyone.
Even if that is true (I doubt it, bureaucracy never costs nothing), imagine all the benefits that marriage brings. The ambulances that are not called because someone is there to take a partner to hospital. The carers that are not needed, the council staff that are not needed for advice, the nurses that are not needed to change bandages.
Marriages financially benefit society. Just a fact.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
I really get fed up with people who attribute the existence of the Anglican church to Henry VIII and no-one else. As the move to the vernacular in the Bible had been about for some time, as the efforts of Mary Tudor totally failed to return the English to the RCC, there was much more to it than that.
And if you look at the map of Europe with the eyes of a geographer, England would have been very odd if it had not joined the Protestants. (I have a vague hypothesis that there is some sort of connection with the Hanse, and its elevation of the mercantile class, and the spreading of ideas among them without the traditional structures of society being involved.)
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Organ Builder
Shipmate
# 12478
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I think the state should get out of the marriage business and deliver benefits independent of it according to its purposes.
Had it done so, equal marriage would have happened much earlier. There are a number of denominations in the US which have been performing religious marriages for same-sex couples for a number of years now. In the coming years, there will be more.
This strikes me as a throw-away remark designed to deflect comment. In the US, at least, the state would not be able to choose which church's marriages were valid and which were not.
The government's interest is not limited to "more children"--especially in a world where over-population is more likely to be a problem than under-population. Increased stability in relationships means more financial security for the individuals--two may not live as cheaply as one, but two together live more cheaply that two apart. That means more disposable income in the economy and a greater buffer between the individual and absolute penury.
So upon further examination, it's hard for me to see how this would lead to a social setup that would be significantly different (from an RCC standpoint) than what has taken place.
--------------------
How desperately difficult it is to be honest with oneself. It is much easier to be honest with other people.--E.F. Benson
Posts: 3337 | From: ...somewhere in between 40 and death... | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carex
Shipmate
# 9643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
... The assertion is "this will harm society"...
Whereas a major component of the decisions for marriage equality in the US courts was the finding that, not only did marriage equality not cause demonstrable harm to anyone, but that lack of marriage equality caused demonstrable harm to the children in families where the adults were not permitted to marry.
Using another name such as "civil partnerships" didn't solve this problem, because the rights of marriage were so strewn throughout the body of law regarding inheritance, hospital visitation rights, tax law, ownership of property, child custody, etc. that changing the wording in every place at all levels of government was not practical.
So the legal finding in the US was that:
1) marriage equality did not cause harm to anyone.
2) lack of marriage equality caused identifiable harm to some people.
Therefore laws prohibiting marriage equality were not justifiable under the equal protection clause of the US Constitution.
Yes, one can still try to argue that marriage equality is harmful to society, but, despite many attempts, no such argument was found to stand up in court.
Posts: 1425 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
imagine all the benefits that marriage brings. The ambulances that are not called because someone is there to take a partner to hospital. The carers that are not needed, the council staff that are not needed for advice, the nurses that are not needed to change bandages.
Marriages financially benefit society. Just a fact.
Aren't you conflating partnerships and marriage here? There are plenty of gay couples who have been living together for years / decades without the possibility of a legal marriage, yet nevertheless do/did all these things for each other - because that's what couples do - married or not.
One could make a reasonable case that such a couple was married, but that their marriage lacked state sanction or recognition.
Perhaps allowing same-sex couples to legally marry increases the likelihood of permanent same-sex couples forming. It has to be true that society's increasing acceptance of same-sex relationships makes it more likely for same-sex couples to openly cohabit, and perhaps legal same-sex marriage is a necessary part of that acceptance, so there's an indirect chain of causality.
(And no, of course there's no difference, other than numbers, in the costs of same-sex marriage being legal vs opposite-sex marriage being legal. It would also be false to say that changing the legal framework surrounding opposite-sex marriage had "bugger-all effect" on anyone else. This is not an argument that same-sex marriage is in any sense a bad thing. It is an argument that the statement "same-sex marriage has absolutely bugger-all effect on anyone who doesn't want to marry someone of the same sex" is false.)
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Aren't you conflating partnerships and marriage here? There are plenty of gay couples who have been living together for years / decades without the possibility of a legal marriage, yet nevertheless do/did all these things for each other - because that's what couples do - married or not.
One could make a reasonable case that such a couple was married, but that their marriage lacked state sanction or recognition.
Perhaps allowing same-sex couples to legally marry increases the likelihood of permanent same-sex couples forming. It has to be true that society's increasing acceptance of same-sex relationships makes it more likely for same-sex couples to openly cohabit, and perhaps legal same-sex marriage is a necessary part of that acceptance, so there's an indirect chain of causality.
I think you've answered your own point here. Legal recognition of gay marriage will lead to more defined rights for gay couples (re inheritance, etc) which will lead to more people getting married. And studies have shown that the overall effect of more people getting married is positive on society, not negative.
So in other words, the idea that gay people getting married is some kind of financial burden on everyone else is not proven
quote:
(And no, of course there's no difference, other than numbers, in the costs of same-sex marriage being legal vs opposite-sex marriage being legal. It would also be false to say that changing the legal framework surrounding opposite-sex marriage had "bugger-all effect" on anyone else. This is not an argument that same-sex marriage is in any sense a bad thing. It is an argument that the statement "same-sex marriage has absolutely bugger-all effect on anyone who doesn't want to marry someone of the same sex" is false.)
It is only false in the sense that rather than having a negative effect on those who do not want to marry someone of the same sex (and in fact everyone else), the overall financial effect is positive. So actually Karl is understating things.
[ 15. July 2015, 20:13: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
And studies have shown that the overall effect of more people getting married is positive on society, not negative.
It's clear that a society of couples is better-off than a society of singletons living alone. So to the extent that legalizing same-sex marriage encourages more gay people to form permanent cohabiting couples, there's a financial benefit to society.
That's fine, too. Karl's statement was "this has bugger-all effect on anyone else". My claim is that that is false. I posted a mechanism that had a small negative financial effect on everyone else. Your claim is that the net financial effect on everyone else, once you consider all the indirect effects, is positive. You might be right. I think it's rather less clear-cut than you do, but that doesn't matter.
We are agreeing that the statement "bugger-all effect" is false.
I also think, and I think you do too, that the question of whether the existence of same-sex marriage has a small financial benefit or a small financial cost to the wider society is irrelevant to the question of whether same-sex couples should have a right to marry.
The wider question (how much does society benefit from having married people) might be relevant to the question of to what degree governments should favour marriage in their taxation policies, though.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Leorning Cniht: I posted a mechanism that had a small negative financial effect on everyone else.
Think about all the presents I need to buy!
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Marital equality improves society, lack of discrimination improves society, acceptance improves society
Marital equality improves mental, physical and social wellbeing. Not having marital equality harms it.
It is about marital equality. It's all marriage. And I am not hetereo-typing just now, nor is anyone SS-typing on this thread.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The state should get out of the business you have claimed is so vital to its interest?
The state has long ago started separating issues of childcare from marriage. I don't have to be married to claim child benefits, for example. The state should finish its business and reform its provisions, instead of messing about with age-old institutions as a proxy to shitty, convoluted laws it is responsible for.
quote:
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
This strikes me as a throw-away remark designed to deflect comment. In the US, at least, the state would not be able to choose which church's marriages were valid and which were not.
Not at all. I literally think there should not be any law on the books of the state that depends on "validity of marriage". None. Have the courage of your convictions. If another man can act as my representative to hospitals when I'm unconscious, can be my primary heir, can have shared parental responsibilities with me and whatnot, then what precisely has all this to do with my desire to screw him? Nothing. When that was a woman called my wife, then this had something to do with her likely popping out our kids. That was the original idea behind all these provisions. Now you say these provision have taken on a life of their own, I can now assign them to a man I want to screw. Well, then why can I not assign them to a man I do not want to screw? Or a woman I have zero sexual interest in? Perhaps even to my brother?
Be consistent. If it is good that all this stuff is assigned to an intimate partner who is not going to procreate with me even in principle, then why on earth is it not good to simply assign this to anyone I wish, irrespective of anything sexual going on? What has shagging just as shagging got to do with someone representing my wishes to a hospital, for example?
The state should stop messing around with marriage, and simply fix its laws to give freely chosen adult associations whatever benefits it sees fit.
[ 15. July 2015, 21:32: Message edited by: IngoB ]
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Be consistent.
Please give up your fear of mirrors, they will not steal your soul.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
