[quote]borrek wrote:
Unwed couples are perfectly capable of being present and responsible for the care of their children. The children are at no disadvantage because the parents are not married.
[/quote]
Riiiiight…And, this happens how often? Have you looked at single parent stats lately? And you guys want to weaken the prestige of the institution of marriage even more?
[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
exactly. [b]Marriage only reinforces two parents stay together, not for some instinctual need to keep the genes going or raise offspring until they can survive on their own, but because a state marriage is partly a monetary contract, breaking that contract can result in loss of income, property, child payements, ect.
that people don’t view marriage as means of child rearing.[/quote]
If you reinforce the need for two parents to stay together, you’re reinforcing the the number of children born and raised in intact homes…
In order to hold onto your opinion, you’ve had to stop making sense. You’re starting to argue that the propogation of our citienry isn’t the function. You’re saying that the point of marriage is to identify some people to recieve some benefits. That is obviously not the purpose of marriage. Do you really think the point is to offer some folks benefits single people don’t get. “Look, uh, I came up with a bunch of cool legal benefits that need to be used up, but there’s noone to use them. I’m hoping the congress can create a new class of people for us to lavish these benefits with.”
[quote]Sloth wrote:
And you guys want to weaken the prestige of the institution of marriage even more? [/quote]
“Prestige”? You mean with dowry, divorce rates, adultery and shotgun weddings there’s any “prestige” left?
That ship has sailed.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
And you guys want to weaken the prestige of the institution of marriage even more?
“Prestige”? You mean with dowry, divorce rates, adultery and shotgun weddings there’s any “prestige” left?
That ship has sailed.[/quote]
Yes, prestige. When a social institution becomes weakened, and the negative results can be seen in criminal and generational poverty stats, my reaction is to ask how we shore up the social prestige of marriage. How we return to it. You’ll have to excuse me for not throwing my hands up.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
borrek wrote:
Unwed couples are perfectly capable of being present and responsible for the care of their children. The children are at no disadvantage because the parents are not married.
Riiiiight…And, this happens how often? Have you looked at single parent stats lately? And you guys want to weaken the prestige of the institution of marriage even more?
[/quote]
Who is talking about single parents? I said couples.
Here is a newsflash, no one ever gets married because it is prestigious. People get married because they want to make a commitment to each other. That commitment between two people cannot be weakened based on who is allowed to marry.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
lixy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
And you guys want to weaken the prestige of the institution of marriage even more?
“Prestige”? You mean with dowry, divorce rates, adultery and shotgun weddings there’s any “prestige” left?
That ship has sailed.
Yes, prestige. When a social institution becomes weakened, and the negative results can be seen in criminal and generational poverty stats, my reaction is to ask how we shore up the social prestige of marriage. How we return to it. You’ll have to excuse me for not throwing my hands up.[/quote]
Go ahead and post any causal report on those criminal and poverty stats.
Prestige is an interesting word, because prestige is contingent on how others view you. Why so worried about how others view your marriage? You should take that external focus, and point inwards to your own relationship.
[quote]borrek wrote:
Sloth wrote:
lixy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
And you guys want to weaken the prestige of the institution of marriage even more?
“Prestige”? You mean with dowry, divorce rates, adultery and shotgun weddings there’s any “prestige” left?
That ship has sailed.
Yes, prestige. When a social institution becomes weakened, and the negative results can be seen in criminal and generational poverty stats, my reaction is to ask how we shore up the social prestige of marriage. How we return to it. You’ll have to excuse me for not throwing my hands up.
Go ahead and post any causal report on those criminal and poverty stats.
Prestige is an interesting word, because prestige is contingent on how others view you. Why so worried about how others view your marriage? You should take that external focus, and point inwards to your own relationship. [/quote]
Your entire arguement revolves around a species that doesn’t exist on this planet. Man is not an island. Social norms, values, traditions, and institutions have a huge influence on society. If marriage is not held up as an exclusive and prestigious institution that our citizenry is to favor and journey towards, it will weaken. Even more than it has been weakened now.
The intact family is the absolute most important governing body in this country. The further this erodes, the more you people clamor for a larger federal government to step in and fill it’s traditional role. Welfare, healthcare, social security, education, policing, and etc.
And, do I really have to link to stats cocerning single parent, born out of wedlock children? I didn’t even think anyone challenged the immense value intact homes, with both parents present, provides.
Your stance is that as long as everything stays ok for you until you die, you don’t care what future generations may inherent.
[quote]borrek wrote:
Why so worried about how others view your marriage? You should take that external focus, and point inwards to your own relationship. [/quote]
Oh for crap’s sake. I’m not worried about how others view my, or any specific individual’s, marriage. Can we get past that yet?
[quote]borrek wrote:
Sloth wrote:
borrek wrote:
Unwed couples are perfectly capable of being present and responsible for the care of their children. The children are at no disadvantage because the parents are not married.
Riiiiight…And, this happens how often? Have you looked at single parent stats lately? And you guys want to weaken the prestige of the institution of marriage even more?
Who is talking about single parents? I said couples.
Here is a newsflash, no one ever gets married because it is prestigious. People get married because they want to make a commitment to each other. That commitment between two people cannot be weakened based on who is allowed to marry. [/quote]
So couples don’t get married, because they don’t want the commitment. But, I’m supposed to believe that such lukewarm commitment is supposed to be capable of filling the role of marriage in our society.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
As usual, incorrect - I have never, nor have I ever seen anyone, argue that the creation of gay marriage would affect their own marriage and/or their own vows taken. The argument is, as has been repeated a thousand times over, about the effect on marriage generally and going forward.
[/quote]
The Iowa Supreme Court specifically addressed and rejected YOUR argument that gay marriage is a threat to straight marriage in general:
[quote]Maintaining Traditional Marriage. Initially, the court considered the County’s argument the same-sex marriage ban promotes the “integrity of traditional marriage” by “maintaining the historical and traditional marriage norm ([as] one between a man and a woman).” The court noted that, when tradition is offered as a justification for preserving a statutory scheme challenged on equal protection grounds, the court must determine whether the reasons underlying the tradition are sufficient to satisfy constitutional requirements. These reasons, the court found, must be something other than the preservation of tradition by itself. “When a certain tradition is used as both the governmental objective and the classification to further that objective, the equal protection analysis is transformed into the circular question of whether the classification accomplishes the governmental objective, which objective is to maintain the classification.” Here, the County offered no governmental reason underlying the tradition of limiting marriage to heterosexual couples, so the court proceeded to consider the other reasons advanced by the County for the legislative classification.
Promoting Stability in Opposite-Sex Relationships. The County also asserted that the statute promoted stability in opposite-sex relationships. The court acknowledged that, while the institution of civil marriage likely encourages stability in opposite-sex relationships, there was no evidence to support that excluding gay and lesbian people from civil marriage makes opposite-sex marriage more stable.[/quote]
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Incorrect. Marriage serves as a means, not an end - and it serves as a means to order the creation and raising of children. Society has no need to enact marriage that serves some other end.[/quote]
Also specifically addressed, and dismissed, by the Iowa Supreme Court:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Forlife couldn’t wait to boast about his PhD - all I am doing is holding him to the standard of someone who should be smart enough to make a good defense of his points, as he presumably would have in his dissertation. His grade? He flunked.[/quote]
Over the course of thousands of posts, I’ve discussed my education what…a half dozen times? As I’ve said before, having a Ph.D. doesn’t make you an expert. To the contrary, it makes you realize your own ignorance.
You are the master of derogating the character of people you debate, while strutting around as the go-to guy with logic and reason on his side.
Get over yourself. Not everyone that disagrees with you is a wild-eyed zealot pushing an agenda to forsake cherished values and overthrow society. I recognize that you are sincere in your beliefs, although I believe you are grossly misguided. You can at least show that same respect toward me and others who disagree with you.
[quote]forlife wrote:
The Iowa Supreme Court specifically addressed and rejected YOUR argument that gay marriage is a threat to straight marriage in general:[/quote]
And yet, the Court of Appeals of the great, progressive state of New York agrees with me:
http://www2.law.columbia.edu/faculty_franke/Gender_Justice/Hernandez_Robles.pdf
What now, copy-and-paste warrior?
[quote]forlife wrote:
Get over yourself. Not everyone that disagrees with you is a wild-eyed zealot pushing an agenda to forsake cherished values and overthrow society.[/quote]
No, not everyone, and I certainly never suggested so. Only you.
I’m always amused at your situational pleas for respect - after all, I assume your memory hasn’t faded to the point that you don’t remember that as we came forth with arguments against you, you slandered everyone who disagreed with you a “hate-filled bigot”?
“Respect for me…but not for thee!”
[quote]borrek wrote:
Simple. Because it is the will of the People that religious marriage have a place in our legal system. It’s inclusion in legal code is not ipso facto proof that is serves a purpose.[/quote]
Correct, now do yourself a favor and ask the obvious question “why does the will of the People include marriage in the legal system?”.
Marriage incentivizes the raising of a child in a particular kind of way, not just generally. Marriage - by way of legal benefits and social stigma (both good and bad) - encourage child-raising by the people responsible for bringing the child into the world.
This is no accident.
You are completely wrong, but assuming you were correct, you’ll need to take it up with gay marriage advocates, who take the complete opposite position. They insist that gay marriage is “needed” - you say marriage isn’t needed at all, so what you are saying is that instead of creating gay marriage, we should just do away with it altogether.
Free will is and has always been affected by all sorts of social influences - both positive and negative. Marriage encourages certain behaviors by rewarding certain actions and marriage also uses moral and cultural opprobrium to shame behavior we want to minimize.
This isn’t news - and gay marriage advocates insist marriage would do the same for their community. I disagree with them, but at least they understand the role of marriage in society - as it appears you do not.
No one argued this.
Asked and answered in the previous post - those relationships are inherently unequal, and society has the right to preserve the superior version if they think it best (and society also has the right to go the other way if the want to - see Vermont).
The polygamy slippery slope, already happening in Canada:
http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2009/04/the-polygamy-slippery-slope.html
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
borrek wrote:
Simple. Because it is the will of the People that religious marriage have a place in our legal system. It’s inclusion in legal code is not ipso facto proof that is serves a purpose.
Correct, now do yourself a favor and ask the obvious question “why does the will of the People include marriage in the legal system?”.
[/quote]
Per your own link to the New York State Supreme Court ruling, “Beyond this, they receive the symbolic
benefit, or moral satisfaction, of seeing
their relationships recognized by the State.”
“Beyond this” was regarding specific benefits of marriage provided by the State, i.e. tax relief, insurance coverage. The ruling lists a summary of the most significant benefits of marriage, and specificallydoes not list a more stable child rearing environment as a benefit.
Of course that environment can be a benefit, but is not a defined definite benefit.
First, there is no legal benefit to having a child in wedlock. There are tax benefits to being married, and tax benefits to having a child, but they are not contingent on each other. There is no specific legal benefit that encourages a particular raising. It is often the case that the people bringing a child into the world are not suitable for raising the child, and the State will then remove the child. Marriage is no buffer to that removal.
I don’t particularly care about the position of gay marriage advocates. I don’t have any agenda with an end of achieving gay marriage. I am not going to deny them that right, and if it came to a vote, I would vote against a ban, but I am not specifically an advocate of gay marriage. I’m an advocate of personal freedom.
In no way did I ever say or intimate that marriage should be done away with.
My disagreement about the role of marriage in society is based on the initial statements that marriage’s role is to form the smallest unit of reproduction. (Which, by the way, when being issued a license to marry, reproduction is never even mentioned. Seems odd if I’m being issued a license to create a reproductive unit)
Now it seems like the argument is being shifted and marriage’s role is now as a check on salacious behaviors.
So then if the point is not argued, it can be given that a same-sex family can provide a child rearing environment that is equal or better than many standard nuclear families (but for the statistical outliers of the “perfect” nuclear family)
Otherwise, to say that a same-sex marriage is an unsuitable environment is to say that same-sex marriages are all deficient by virtue of the orientation of the parents. In order to deny a fundamental right of marriage based on a “deficiency”, is unequal protection, and does in fact deprive due process because it places a heightened scrutiny on the suitability of a couple based on sexual orientation, a scrutiny which does not exist at all for heterosexual couples.
If a heterosexual is deemed an unfit parent, their right to marry is not abridged, in spite of failing the same criteria which is preventing same-sex couples from marrying. How is this equal protection?
[quote]borrek wrote:
My disagreement about the role of marriage in society is based on the initial statements that marriage’s role is to form the smallest unit of reproduction. (Which, by the way, when being issued a license to marry, reproduction is never even mentioned. Seems odd if I’m being issued a license to create a reproductive unit)
[/quote]
I’m only going to respond to this example, because there’s too much of this kind of nonsense in your posts to keep up with.
Why would it have to be mentioned?! Since it’s matching up males with females, children are going to happen. The birds and the bees folks, the birds and the bees.
[quote]borrek wrote:
If a heterosexual is deemed an unfit parent, their right to marry is not abridged, in spite of failing the same criteria which is preventing same-sex couples from marrying. How is this equal protection?[/quote]
Ok, and this. The equal protection nonsense is stupid. What about single folks? Why do they have to see a special status and sets of benifits for people who choose to live under the same roof together? Do you propose doing away with marriage? Or, allowing single people to claim the status and benefits of marriage solo? Or, just do away with state recognized/rewarded marriage in order to creat an equal status under the law?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
borrek wrote:
If a heterosexual is deemed an unfit parent, their right to marry is not abridged, in spite of failing the same criteria which is preventing same-sex couples from marrying. How is this equal protection?
Ok, and this. The equal protection nonsense is stupid. What about single folks? Why do they have to see a special status and sets of benifits for people who choose to live under the same roof together? Do you propose doing away with marriage? Or, allowing single people to claim the status and benefits of marriage solo? Or, just do away with state recognized/rewarded marriage in order to creat an equal status under the law?[/quote]
You’re trying to make this more complicated in the hopes the base issue will get bowled away. Shock & Awe didn’t work in Iraq, and it isn’t very good here either.
I will make this simple for you…
1.) The main argument against same-sex marriage is that gays inherently cannot provide a certain particular raising for a child.
2.) When a hetero is proven under the law to be an unfit parent, they have been unable to provide that same certain particular raising.
3.) Failure to provide a proper rearing environment is not grounds to deprive the heterosexual the fundamental right to marry; therefore, an inability to provide a proper rearing environment cannot be a criteria for denying marriage rights
This is not hard. This has nothing to do with opening up the barn door and allowing singles to marry themselves (you should really shelf that argument btw)
The legal choice is simple, either apply the same standard of suitability to all marriage license seekers - thereby restricting the right of some heterosexuals to marry, or provide same-sex couples the same level of scrutiny currently given to heterosexuals i.e. none.