Gay Marriage
- Thread starter Gannicus
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Marriage in the UK is a legal formality, my wife couldn't stay here unless we were married. Gay marriage is a legal equal right, but the church(es) should reserve it's right to decide if it wants to play a part.
It's genuinely incredible to me how this is coming down to a partisan political vote, as all things seem to do in America.
No offence intended to our Americans, of course.
You don't have to have sex if you're married and you don't need to be married to have sex. The debate should separate those two elements.
Come on people, the only argument against it so far seems to be that it will redefine the term "marriage". Unless you are a dictionary editor I can't see why anyone would really think that's more important than a couples happiness.
One of the points I find amusing in the anti-gay-marriage argument is the one that talks about it being unnatural. There is NOTHING natural about heterosexual monogamous marriage. Making a commitment to feck only one person for the rest of your life is an absolutely huge deviation from what is natural, especially for men. Marriage was a social construct designed exactly for the purpose of suppressing mankind's natural behavior.
He did not compare gay people to dead dogs. Christ, why do people get so hysterical when it comes to this topic. It makes both sides sounds like religious nuts, especially when 'ban him! ban him!' is thrown in.
But he did.
He made direct links between mixed-race marriage, same-sex marriage, and then marrying a dead dog, as if somehow humans marrying other humans (that they are not immediately related to) is comparable to a human marrying (not shagging) their dead pet.
He's also compared same-sex marriage to traffic laws, and made an incredibly poor analogy about being Bill Gates' heir.
I think it's pretty clear that his issue isn't with how laws can be changed, but rather that his neighbours might soon be receiving a large order for some KY Jelly to celebrate.
Eh? A marriage can be voided if you don't bone.
Took you long enough.
To make direct links is not to compare or to equate. I think you've completely misunderstood his point.
This wouldn't even be the first time today that you've misread someone's work.
Did you miss the pun?
I have my fair share of terrible ones too.
I ignore puns out of principle.
And I think you have.
The guy hasn't once talked about the apparent vulnerability of laws. Even when he was talking about being Bill Gates' heir his only concern was the definition of the word heir (probably because he could be Bill Gates' heir if Bill Gates said so) and not that you can't just change the legal process.
I see no reason to believe his post had anything to do with a fear that me and my lefty, liberal chums would soon be campaigning for the right to marry our deceased pets, especially when that sort of absurdity is just parroted from many Christian, anti-gay bellends.
@McUnited, I shared the view for many years that it was an absurdity for two individuals of the same gender to "marry", so I respect where you're coming from. I will respond to the point you've made in this paragraph:
I believe marriage is inherently between a man and a woman by definition. Therefore it's incoherent to speak of same-sex marriage; that's not what marriage is. Most people posting on this topic seem to think that marriage is just a social convention adopted by society - like driving on the right, or left-hand side of the road. We could just as easily adopt the opposite side of the road as convention. Or even reverse the function of the colours of our traffic lights (go on red, stop on green).
A marriage is what human beings in a particularly society say it is. There is nothing "inherent" about "marriage" any more than there is something inherent about such notions "freedom" or "justice". These notions evolve over time and will continue to evolve long after our grandchildren have become maggot food.
Not that long ago, it was illegal in quite a few states of the United States for individuals of different races to marry. Mixed-race marriages were frowned upon, and in many cases, actually illegal for a very long time. I'm not sure what the conventions might have been in Europe before the 20th century, but it wouldn't surprise me at all to learn there were prohibitions on mixed-race marriages or even mixed-religion marriages for a very, very long time. These anti-miscegenation laws in the US were, thankfully, put to an abrupt end in the Loving v Virginia decision in 1967, a decision which is no longer controversial.
Let's just think about this for a moment. A black woman and a white man were prohibited by the "Racial Integrity Act of 1924" in Virginia that they could not legally marry. I've never researched the ideological origins of this law but it's safe to assume that it was considered "inherently" wrong for a white person to marry a "colored" person and must be banned by law. The absurdity of such a belief needs no explanation here. Notions of what are "inherently" right and wrong need to be examined constantly in light of our foundational principles of freedom and justice, which themselves need to be constantly re-examined.
We cannot invoke the Christian Bible in deciding such matters, unless we're willing to accept absurd results such as the lawful execution of adulterers and the like.
But let's get back to what is "inherent". We indeed could adopt and enact laws, at least after we amend the US Constitution, that make it lawful for there to be a state religion and punish anyone by confinement and execution who violates religious edicts. Or even re-instituting slavery.
After all, the US Constitution (before the Thirteenth Amendment was ratified) implicitly protected the institution of slavery, which is as "inherently" wrong a human institution that anyone could possibly imagine and it explicitly protected the slave trade until 1808. Don't believe me? Let's check out Article I, Section 9, Clause I of the US Constitution:
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
What is "inherent" is the capacity of human beings to contemplate such notions as "freedom" and "justice" and to feel "mercy" and "compassion" to those who are not like us. There is no principle of freedom and justice, as we understand those concepts today in western society, that support the assertion that only two human beings who are of the oppose gender may enjoy the same privileges, immunities and protections of legal marriage. But I will grant you that such a view has been held by many people for many years, not unlike the view that individuals of different races (a pure human construct, by the way) could no more "inherently" "marry" than a human being and a gorilla.
There is custom and tradition, but we've already seen the harm that slavish adherence to custom and tradition can wreak on society. Some customs and traditions are great and should be maintained, but others tossed into the trashbin. We rely on reason as best we can decide when to haul out the dustbin.
What is incoherent is the argument that marriage can only be between a man and a woman because that's how it's always been. A lot of "inherent" things, such as prohibitions on interracial marriage, "always were", but have thankfully and mercifully been left in the rear view mirror by an appeal to, in the words of Lincoln, the better angels of our nature.
I believe marriage is inherently between a man and a woman by definition. Therefore it's incoherent to speak of same-sex marriage; that's not what marriage is. Most people posting on this topic seem to think that marriage is just a social convention adopted by society - like driving on the right, or left-hand side of the road. We could just as easily adopt the opposite side of the road as convention. Or even reverse the function of the colours of our traffic lights (go on red, stop on green).
A marriage is what human beings in a particularly society say it is. There is nothing "inherent" about "marriage" any more than there is something inherent about such notions "freedom" or "justice". These notions evolve over time and will continue to evolve long after our grandchildren have become maggot food.
Not that long ago, it was illegal in quite a few states of the United States for individuals of different races to marry. Mixed-race marriages were frowned upon, and in many cases, actually illegal for a very long time. I'm not sure what the conventions might have been in Europe before the 20th century, but it wouldn't surprise me at all to learn there were prohibitions on mixed-race marriages or even mixed-religion marriages for a very, very long time. These anti-miscegenation laws in the US were, thankfully, put to an abrupt end in the Loving v Virginia decision in 1967, a decision which is no longer controversial.
Let's just think about this for a moment. A black woman and a white man were prohibited by the "Racial Integrity Act of 1924" in Virginia that they could not legally marry. I've never researched the ideological origins of this law but it's safe to assume that it was considered "inherently" wrong for a white person to marry a "colored" person and must be banned by law. The absurdity of such a belief needs no explanation here. Notions of what are "inherently" right and wrong need to be examined constantly in light of our foundational principles of freedom and justice, which themselves need to be constantly re-examined.
We cannot invoke the Christian Bible in deciding such matters, unless we're willing to accept absurd results such as the lawful execution of adulterers and the like.
But let's get back to what is "inherent". We indeed could adopt and enact laws, at least after we amend the US Constitution, that make it lawful for there to be a state religion and punish anyone by confinement and execution who violates religious edicts. Or even re-instituting slavery.
After all, the US Constitution (before the Thirteenth Amendment was ratified) implicitly protected the institution of slavery, which is as "inherently" wrong a human institution that anyone could possibly imagine and it explicitly protected the slave trade until 1808. Don't believe me? Let's check out Article I, Section 9, Clause I of the US Constitution:
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
What is "inherent" is the capacity of human beings to contemplate such notions as "freedom" and "justice" and to feel "mercy" and "compassion" to those who are not like us. There is no principle of freedom and justice, as we understand those concepts today in western society, that support the assertion that only two human beings who are of the oppose gender may enjoy the same privileges, immunities and protections of legal marriage. But I will grant you that such a view has been held by many people for many years, not unlike the view that individuals of different races (a pure human construct, by the way) could no more "inherently" "marry" than a human being and a gorilla.
There is custom and tradition, but we've already seen the harm that slavish adherence to custom and tradition can wreak on society. Some customs and traditions are great and should be maintained, but others tossed into the trashbin. We rely on reason as best we can decide when to haul out the dustbin.
What is incoherent is the argument that marriage can only be between a man and a woman because that's how it's always been. A lot of "inherent" things, such as prohibitions on interracial marriage, "always were", but have thankfully and mercifully been left in the rear view mirror by an appeal to, in the words of Lincoln, the better angels of our nature.
Look, he made one post mentioning dogs and this was it:
'If I had a 18-year-old sister, could I marry her? How about my deceased dog? Where would you draw the line?'
He was not equating anything, he was using a consequentialist/slippery slope argument to imply that by altering what he sees a sacred definition, you pave the way for the definition to be changed further into more troublesome areas. Any pea-brained idiot should be able to see this.
Who said anything about pandering to anything? I was suggesting it's a good idea to keep the debate civil, just as we do in all the other threads. If anyone can't abide by the attack the post, not the poster rule, then they are best off not participating.
A pea-brained idiot would also consider his other postings here and see that he genuinely thinks they're comparable. Changing the traffic light was a genuine argument he used.
I don't think there is nearly enough in his further posts to make the conclusion that he equates the two. It's nothing more than a childish straw man argument you are using to shoot him down, I'm afraid.
Back on topic, IMO the most vulnerable part of the anti-gay-marriage argument used by Christians is that it is forbidden by the Bible. In that case, divorce should be illegal and so too should sex before marriage. Is anyone still making the case for this?
Yes. Christians. Who can only get an annulment that's approved by the church.
We still talking about the person who thinks any deviation from his religion is a bad thing?
I believe if it's purely based on religion, then it has to be a no. Marriage has gone beyond a religious ceremony to a social event.
I will still vote yes, but i can see why the more steadfast believers are against it.
I will still vote yes, but i can see why the more steadfast believers are against it.
I don't know of anyone who makes the case that scriptural rules on divorce and sex-before-marriage should be applied to everyone in society by law, i.e. that they should be illegal. So why do they make an exception for gay marriage?
How come civil partnerships never received the same legal rights as marriage? Or couldn't they have changed a civil partnership to be equivalent of marriage? Like in terms of tax breaks and all those things?
None taken, but I do think it's more than political partisanship. Much more.
There is a genuine belief in some conservative circles that this issue should be decided purely on a legislative level, not from a judge's bench. But of course those conservatives would also oppose gay marriage when the matter comes to a vote, not out of party politics but out of a sincere fear of what they believe is an erosion of "family values".
I agree that this fear is irrational, but it is sincere. Many views that are irrational are sincerely held.
What will disappointment me is to see justices who claim the Founding principles as their principles as they write an opinion that upholds the "states' rights" argument that each state should be free to deny to same sex couples the legal rights and privileges of "marriage" as opposite sex couples. They will, in effect, argue t distinction that is purely arbitrary and entirely at odds with the meaning of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment and the spirit of the Founding.
Were Jefferson, Madison, Marshall and Lincoln* alive today, they would weep at what is being written in their name.
*Although not a Founder, Lincoln understood the principles of the Founding better than most Founders as well as most Americans today.
Try the majority of people until very recently. Divorce has only recently been a legal and largely accepted phenomenon with some countries still outright banning. If you'd checked before posting, you'd have found out that the Philippines still doesn't allow Divorce for Christian reasons and other Christian countries have only banned it in the last decade. And a quick google on attitudes within religion will show there are still groups outside of the Philippines who do take it that far to this very day. The parts of Christianity (and otherwise) who still make the exception do so because it's still illegal and they fecking hate gays so they don't want them to get anything.
I was thinking more in modern Western society where the gay marriage debate is taking place. Sure there are religious fanatics who argue that extra marital sex should be illegal, but you would be hard pressed to find any semi-serious politician making the case. Which is the point I'm making - the politicians arguing against gay marriage on Biblical grounds are fecking hypocrites.
I probably wasn't clear enough, sorry. I don't mean Alito and friends are going to decide this on the basis of "hmm... what would best support Jeb in 2016?" I mean the fact that Alito and friends are deciding this at all is amazing to me.
As I understand it, and please correct me if not, we're going to have the four Democrat-selected Supreme Court judges voting aye, four Republican-selected judges voting no, and one - one! - judge fairly and objectively considering this on the facts, and being the swing vote. It's a bit jarring to foreign observers where party affiliation is much less important.
Ah. Yeah, and for more than that reason.
Of the 9 justices on the bench, 5 were appointed by Republicans and 4 were appointed by Democrats.
It's more complicated, however, than a Rep v Dem thing. Justice Roberts voted to sustain Obamacare in what is widely regarded as a strained, if not absurd, decision. On the pure legal merits, the unconstitutionality of the Affordable Care and Patient Protection Act is pretty clear (which is not to be confused, however, with the wisdom of the policy). But Roberts hung in there with Obama and came up with an interesting new doctrine that we can talk about someday on the appropriate thread. It's widely believed that Roberts will save Obamacare again this summer in the King v Burwell case that turns on a statutory, not constitutional interpretation. Again, a fair minded reading of the letter and intent of the law is pretty clear, but you can bet a Benjamin, not just a Jackson, that Roberts will come to the rescue for Obama again.
Kennedy was appointed by Reagan but is widely viewed as the swing vote in many of these cases.
As for partisanship, it works both ways. Just as it may be fair to accuse the Republicans on the bench to be "partisan", it's equally fair to accuse the Democrats on the bench to be partisan as well. It can't just be that only those with whom one disagrees act in a partisan manner.
So what other nations is gay marriage legal and where is it not? For those where it is legal when did it become so?
Horrendously only in the last two years in the UK.
Same-sex marriage is legally recognized nationwide in the Netherlands[nb 2](2001), Belgium (2003), Spain (2005), Canada (2005), South Africa(2006), Norway (2009), Sweden (2009), Portugal (2010), Iceland (2010), Argentina (2010), Denmark[nb 1] (2012), Brazil (2013), France (2013),Uruguay (2013), New Zealand[nb 3] (2013), the United Kingdom[nb 4] (2014) and Luxembourg (2015). The laws in Slovenia and Finland are expected to take effect in 2015 and on 1 March 2017, respectively.
IDK if it's been answered yet, it's usually 4-4 with one judge being tiebreaker. Right now, I'd say it's usually conservative(see Hobby Lobby)
http://www.theguardian.com/world/ng...orld-lesbian-bisexual-transgender#country:826
It's a year old so some countries might have legalised it since then.
Perhaps being so specific is an intrusion, and I'd be fine with getting rid of it. But a lack of sex is a good reason to end a marriage.
It's not clear what the "conservative" answer is with respect to cases like Hobby Lobby. The holding was very narrowly curtailed to apply only to closely held companies and has no use whatsoever as a precedent for companies like GE and JP Morgan Chase, which surely would have supported a ruling that declared the unconstitutionality of a law that would allow any corporation to dictate religious values to its customers or a ruling which would have allowed such corporations to dictate such values. GE and JP Morgan might have never availed themselves of such a power, but they'd be horrified by any attempt by shareholders to gain control of a publicly held corporation and dictate religious values to its employees, suppliers or consumers.
I agree that was a poor example. I couldn't think of a better case tbh. The last case I can remember by name - or at all - was the Hobby Lobby one.
In the US at least, the "other stuff" marriage affords is really quite important. Visitation rights in hospitals, custody cases for children, taxes, inheritance etc. Quite yet opening what we take for granted and what some try to block others having.
Hobby Lobby is a decent case to moan about. But aside from the gay marriage case, the crazy one this year has to do with Obamacare. Again. If the subject related to almost anything else, you'd have a 9-0 decision in favor of the plaintiff but because it deals with Obamacare we'll see a 5-4 decision to uphold the Administration's interpretation. Curiously, those who support the plaintiffs on a legal basis should, on a purely partisan basis, support the defendant as the will be completely fooked politically if the insurance subsidy for consumers of the federal exchanges goes poof! Roberts will understand this and hold for the defendant, writing an opinion which will be in conflict with the known facts.