Gay Marriage

Silva said:
A desire to do so.
Click to expand...

Okay, let's look at that:
Me: Why would they rather get married, even if they were able to get exactly the same rights?
You: For the same reason you'd rather marry a woman than get a civil partnership with her.
Me: And what would those be?
You: A desire to do so.

Methinks you might be evading the question.
 
McUnited said:
Okay, let's look at that:
Me: Why would they rather get married, even if they were able to get exactly the same rights?
You: For the same reason you'd rather marry a woman than get a civil partnership with her.
Me: And what would those be?
You: A desire to do so.

Methinks you might be evading the question.
Click to expand...
Why else would you get married?
 
Since mc United has decided to stop responding, I'll lay out the point I was making.


He conceded that marriage between an infertile man and woman is fine, meaning that his criteria for marriage are not based on procreation so we can dismiss that line of argument. He has yet to argue that gay partners who wish to marry don't provide mutual companionship (his first benefit) or a benefit to society (his second benefit) so all that's left is the argument that marriage is between man and a woman because... It is between a man and a woman.

Which would be a reasonable argument if this had been a consistent definition for all of human history. But as I pointed out (and @McUnited agreed with) the definition of marriage has changed a number of times.


So we have dismissed the procreation argument and we have dismissed the tradition argument, meaning all we have left is...a void. Some people would say that their continued objection after all rationales have been stripped away is bigotry but I think it is clear that whatever the motivation for the continued objection is, their complaints are invalid and shouldn't stand in the way of equal rights for all.


I'll make it simple here so mcunited can point out where he thinks I've gotten it wrong.


"Marriage is between a man and a woman because..."

1. That's how it has always been - FALSE (interracial restrictions, age of bride, polygamy etc)
2. Marriage is for procreation - FALSE (infertile couples)
3. Marriage is to provide mutual companionship - FALSE (gay coupled have this too)
4. Marriage is for the good of society - FALSE (we don't dissolve abusive marriages, we don't dissolve marriages of rich old guys marrying attractive twentysomethings, etc)

There is no logical justification to react the rights of gay people
 
Last edited:
Eboue said:
Since mc United has decided to stop responding, I'll lay out the point I was making.


He conceded that marriage between an infertile man and woman is fine, meaning that his criteria for marriage are not based on procreation so we can dismiss that line of argument. He has yet to argue that gay partners who wish to marry don't provide mutual companionship (his first benefit) or a benefit to society (his second benefit) so all that's left is the argument that marriage is between man and a woman because... It is between a man and a woman.

Which would be a reasonable argument if this had been a consistent definition for all of human history. But as I pointed out (and @McUnited agreed with) the definition of marriage has changed a number of times.


So we have dismissed the procreation argument and we have dismissed the tradition argument, meaning all we have left is...a void. Some people would say that their continued objection after all rationales have been stripped away is bigotry but I think it is clear that whatever the motivation for the continued objection is, their complaints are invalid and shouldn't stand in the way of equal rights for all.


I'll make it simple here so mcunited can point out where he thinks I've gotten it wrong.


"Marriage is between a man and a woman because..."

1. That's how it has always been - FALSE (interracial restrictions, age of bride, polygamy etc)
2. Marriage is for procreation - FALSE (infertile couples)
3. Marriage is to provide mutual companionship - FALSE (gay coupled have this too)
4. Marriage is for the good of society (we don't dissolve abusive marriages, we don't dissolve marriages of rich old guys marrying attractive twentysomethings, etc)

There is no logical justification to react the rights of gay people
Click to expand...

Thank you for simplying matters into four neat points.

1. That's how it has always been. You mention interracial restrictions, age of bride, polygamy etc. I note that these are all between man and woman.

The other items are to do with the purpose of marriage, rather than who it's for so are not so relevant to this discussion. Nevertheless, it's appropriate to comment on 2. since same-sex couples obviously can't procreate. Here, Eboue mentions that infertile couples can (quite rightly) be married. But that's not the point. The point is that marriage is the best environment in which to create children and foster their development.
 
McUnited said:
1. That's how it has always been. You mention interracial restrictions, age of bride, polygamy etc. I note that these are all between man and woman.
Click to expand...

But the point is that people thought about it and decided it needed to be changed. Which is exactly what happened recently in the UK and is happening in the U.S. now. The laws governing marriage didn't come down the mountain top with Moses. They were and are subject to societal norms. And if that is all you rest your case on, you've lost the argument.
 
It doesn't matter what it used to be defined as. Old obsolete ideas are meant to die. What matters is how it should be defined. There's simply no reason that gay people should not be allowed to marry.
 
"Because that's how it's always been" is simply not an argument. So it can't be correct anyway given it is based in nothingness.
 
McUnited said:
That's how it has always been. You mention interracial restrictions, age of bride, polygamy etc. I note that these are all between man and woman.
Click to expand...

The understanding of marriage has changed. This is just another change. There is no harm in same-sex couples marrying. I am amazed that so many people are still having a problem with that.


McUnited said:
The point is that marriage is the best environment in which to create children and foster their development.
Click to expand...

Regardless of whether the point is accurate, that wouldn't change with same-sex marriage. Two men or women marrying does not prevent opposite-sex couples to marry and provide "the best environment" to their children.

Really, the only two arguments of same-sex marriage oppponents are: 1. I just don't like same-sex marriage and 2. My god does not like same-sex marriage. Neither is a very convincing argument.
 
Eboue said:
But the point is that people thought about it and decided it needed to be changed. Which is exactly what happened recently in the UK and is happening in the U.S. now. The laws governing marriage didn't come down the mountain top with Moses. They were and are subject to societal norms. And if that is all you rest your case on, you've lost the argument.
Click to expand...

Many people thought about it and came to the opposite conclusion. Just because it happened here doesn't mean it's correct - change doesn't necessarily equal progress. I'm curious to know whether you would strip marriage of all its religious connotations and how liberal you are. Would you, for example, be happy for people to be married wherever they wanted to, by whomever they wanted (their uncle/aunt), with no association to religious authority or dogma?
 
McUnited said:
Thank you for simplying matters into four neat points.

1. That's how it has always been. You mention interracial restrictions, age of bride, polygamy etc. I note that these are all between man and woman.

The other items are to do with the purpose of marriage, rather than who it's for so are not so relevant to this discussion. Nevertheless, it's appropriate to comment on 2. since same-sex couples obviously can't procreate. Here, Eboue mentions that infertile couples can (quite rightly) be married. But that's not the point. The point is that marriage is the best environment in which to create children and foster their development.
Click to expand...
That doesn't even make any sense. If they can't have kid and having kids is the reason they should be allowed to get married, what's the point in a heterosexual infertile couple to get married? Marrying isn't going to artificially make them infertile.
 
JuveGER said:
The understanding of marriage has changed. This is just another change. There is no harm in same-sex couples marrying. I am amazed that so many people are still having a problem with that.




Regardless of whether the point is accurate, that wouldn't change with same-sex marriage. Two men or women marrying does not prevent opposite-sex couples to marry and provide "the best environment" to their children.

Really, the only two arguments of same-sex marriage oppponents are: 1. I just don't like same-sex marriage and 2. My god does not like same-sex marriage. Neither is a very convincing argument.
Click to expand...

I agree - 1. is a poor argument if not backed up by reasons. 2., however is a good argument, particularly if you intend to be married in a religious establishment of said God.
 
McUnited said:
Many people thought about it and came to the opposite conclusion. Just because it happened here doesn't mean it's correct - change doesn't necessarily equal progress. I'm curious to know whether you would strip marriage of all its religious connotations and how liberal you are. Would you, for example, be happy for people to be married wherever they wanted to, by whomever they wanted (their uncle/aunt), with no association to religious authority or dogma?
Click to expand...

Well I'm an atheist so I while I think there should be some sort of qualifications or course required for people to officiate a marriage, I don't think there need be any religious component.
 
McUnited said:
Many people thought about it and came to the opposite conclusion. Just because it happened here doesn't mean it's correct - change doesn't necessarily equal progress. I'm curious to know whether you would strip marriage of all its religious connotations and how liberal you are. Would you, for example, be happy for people to be married wherever they wanted to, by whomever they wanted (their uncle/aunt), with no association to religious authority or dogma?
Click to expand...
This is already a thing.
 
McUnited said:
I agree - 1. is a poor argument if not backed up by reasons. 2., however is a good argument, particularly if you intend to be married in a religious establishment of said God.
Click to expand...
That fails too if the state is secular and not attached to any religion.
 
McUnited said:
Would you, for example, be happy for people to be married [...] with no association to religious authority or dogma?
Click to expand...

Of course, how do you think atheists marry?

If someone wants to add any religious blessing, fine. That's what churches, priests, mosques, imams etc. are for. But from a public administration point of view, marriage is just a legal union between two adults that enter certain duties and rights. There is no reason why same-sex couple should not be allowed to enter the same union.
 
McUnited said:
I note your earlier comments in this thread to the more hostile posters, Raoul, which are appreciated.
Why, though, do you not consider him as a 'legitimate source'? Take note not of who speaks, but what is said!
Click to expand...

In Lane-Craig's case, I take note of the source as well. I've watched his orgy of pseudo-intellectual straw man babble when he debated Sam Harris at the University of Notre Dame, and concluded he has little credibility. But if one were a devout Christian, I could see how his questions would seem more relevant. In terms of debating religion however, he's the classic "God of the Gaps" debater.
 
McUnited said:
2., however is a good argument, particularly if you intend to be married in a religious establishment of said God.
Click to expand...

It's not a good argument. Someone's intention to be married in a certain way does not make it necessary to prevent other people to marry in any other way. "I want to be married before god" does not have to go hand in hand with "I don't want that people of the same sex can marry".
 
Eboue said:
Well I'm an atheist so I while I think there should be some sort of qualifications or course required for people to officiate a marriage, I don't think there need be any religious component.
Click to expand...

In that case, how would this differ to a civil ceremony?
 
Raoul said:
In Lane-Craig's case, I take note of the source as well. I've watched his orgy of pseudo-intellectual straw man babble when he debated Sam Harris at the University of Notre Dame, and concluded he has little credibility. But if one were a devout Christian, I could see how his questions would seem more relevant. In terms of debating religion however, he's the classic "God of the Gaps" debater.
Click to expand...

I disagree on your last point! But that's not the focus of this discussion.
 
JuveGER said:
It's not a good argument. Someone's intention to be married in a certain way does not make it necessary to prevent other people to marry in any other way. "I want to be married before god" does not have to go hand in hand with "I don't want that people of the same sex can marry".
Click to expand...

Well I think it is. If marriage is, in one's view, inextricably linked to religious origins, then one's religious views inform one's opinion on such matters.
 
McUnited said:
Well I think it is. If marriage is, in one's view, inextricably linked to religious origins, then one's religious views inform one's opinion on such matters.
Click to expand...
And it isn't. Marriage predates your particular ceremony and religion. And the vast majority of marriages both today and historically don't have anything to do with your religion. It has, by every measure imaginable, nothing to do with your beliefs.
 
McUnited said:
Many people thought about it and came to the opposite conclusion. Just because it happened here doesn't mean it's correct - change doesn't necessarily equal progress. I'm curious to know whether you would strip marriage of all its religious connotations and how liberal you are. Would you, for example, be happy for people to be married wherever they wanted to, by whomever they wanted (their uncle/aunt), with no association to religious authority or dogma?
Click to expand...

Did you know that until about 600 years ago, people could be married wherever they wanted, by whomever they wanted? The church would take their word for it.
 
Shamwow said:
Did you know that until about 600 years ago, people could be married wherever they wanted, by whomever they wanted? The church would take their word for it.
Click to expand...

No, I didn't know that. If that were the case, then I believe we've made progress. But further change towards same-sex marriage has, in my eyes, gone a step too far.
 
McUnited said:
No, I didn't know that. If that were the case, then I believe we've made progress. But further change towards same-sex marriage has, in my eyes, gone a step too far.
Click to expand...
Most just don't understand why it would bother you in the slightest. You don't have to watch them consummate it or anything, it has nothing to do with you.
 
Eboue said:
I'm not sure what you are asking. Churches don't have to marry gay people. But the government does and their marriage needs to be recognized equally.
Click to expand...

So, in your opinion, as long as the government recognised a same-sex union on the same terms as a marriage, that would be fine?
If so, we are in the same boat!
I just don't think it should be called marriage. It could be called something else - like parriage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.