The first recorded use of the word “marriage” for same-sex couples also occurs during the Roman Empire. A number of marriages are recorded to have taken place during this period. [11] In the year 342, the Christian emperors Constantius and Constans declared that same-sex marriage to be illegal.[12] In the year 390, the Christian emperors Valentinian II, Theodoisus and Arcadius declared homosexual sex to be illegal and those who were guilty of it were condemned to be burned alive in front of the public.[/i]
I also like how it took over 300 years after Christ’s death to outlaw homosexuality. Word of God my ass.[/quote]
Their society was falling apart (sounds familiar) so they tried to remedy it, by getting rid of elements they thought were ruining it. Which came first? I suspect that toerance early on led to decadent behavior later. They should have nipped it in the bud, along with all the other ‘Un-Roman’ vices.
[quote]
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
BostonBarrister: please give me a logical reason, other than homophobia, that allowing gays to marry would negatively impact marriage or procreation among heterosexuals.
BostonBarrister wrote:
Here are two: It could affect the normative behavior of married people, and also affect the societal normative pressure on heterosexuals to marry. Read the links for more.
Now address each of my previous points please.
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
…seriously?
You: It would cause problems?
Me: What problems and why?
You: Uh… it could affect how people act!
Your response here has told me nothing.
HOW AND WHY (I’ll use big letters so you can read them easier) would it affect the normative behavior of married people?
HOW AND WHY would it affect the societal normative pressure on heterosexuals to marry?
Quit repeating the same thing (that it could have an effect), and answer my fucking question.
BostonBarrister wrote:
Tell you what: I’m not re-writing the articles contained in the links that you’re refusing to read. Read the links, particularly the first. Then if you have particularized issues, ask. I know very well that you haven’t read them, because not all of what’s in the links agrees with my positions, and you haven’t pointed this out, which would be the first thing you would do if you had read them. So go along like a good little chap and read up; and if you won’t, to borrow a Briticism, bugger off.
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Here I’ll make another bad attempt at logic (just for shits and giggles): Logic would dictate that a smarter person would understand an article better than a more foolish one. This means, if both read the same article, the smarter person would be better able to answer questions about its content and relate examples from the work.
Its clear to you that you’re the more intelligent of the two of us, yet, having read all three articles, and being asked for an example you would have exacted from them, cannot produce a single one.
Clearly, there is no point in me reading them, since, if you cannot find in them an example of gay marriage leading to a decline in either straight marriage or straight procreation (that is not an example of an act of anti-gay bigotry/bias), I have no hope whatsoever.[/quote]
It’s amazing that you can manage to be so right, and yet so wrong, at the same time.
I’m not rewriting them because they’re long, the answers are long, and they require the length to cover the bases of the arguments. That’s why I’m providing the links. I’m not about to spend the time trying to condense and/or re-write them. Read them, or quit asking for what you’ve already been provided. Or again, bugger off.
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
Secondly, I’ve considered your position, and I’ve realized I’ve been letting you frame the debate ever since you first failed to respond to my original points, so I’m going back there.
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
And I’ve made the mistake of allowing you to limit the scope of the debate to the governments desire to give incentive for procreation and child raising, when, in reality, that is not how marriage is viewed by society. Marriage, to most, is a way of legitimizing relationships. This is relevant because, even if the governments main concern is on the issue of procreation, going about giving the benefits in a way that mirrors a religious idea (of a religion that is anti-gay), thus deciding which relationships will be socially legitimate and which will not, thus supporting, promoting, and encouraging homophobia, is wrong.
If the government wants to incentivize reproduction, why doesn’t the government simply give incentives to those who raise children? Why not let it be understood that encouraging procreation is their goal, instead of working the incentives into an endeavor that most people attach unrelated sentimental value on (whereas most people view marriage as an act of love, not a contract designed to stimulate population growth)?[/quote]
I take it this means you’re going to continue to avoid answering the questions?
As to yours, again, it’s not simply incentivizing reproduction. It’s also about incentivizing the formation and survival of marriage because of reproduction. See my previous posts.
As to why, read the links. Or bugger off. Your choice.
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
Why should society in general take any risk, for any reason, to extend a behavioral incentive meant to produce a particular effect to a small minority that does not wish to follow the parameters that have been set up for that behavioral incentive?
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Because bigotry is bad, supporting it is bad, laws that support it are bad, and supporting laws that support it is bad. Even if the intent was never to legitimize only heterosexual monogamist relationships, if that is the result (which it is), the law is supporting bigotry and should be changed. Even if the “behvioral incentive” has nothing to do with discrimination, if it discriminates (which it does), it should be changed, especially when other laws could easily be enacted that would provide the same incentive without supporting bigotry or discrimination (such as, if you are raising a child, you get benefits, if you aren’t, you don’t).[/quote]
No - if ending a perceived/claimed discrimination has the possible/probable effect of undermining the goal of the incentive, then tough cookies. The general default of our system is majority rule, with a few distinct protections for individual rights that protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority.
Not getting a particular tax break is not the tyranny of the majority; getting access to every single governmental spending program is not a fundamental right. And the government’s job is not to give a stamp of legitimacy to each and every social position, irrespective of the government’s policy goals; i.e., if getting “legitimacy” has the potential to undermine the policy goal, tough cookies for the demand for government’s endorsement.
BTW, just out of curiousity, what’s your view on affirmative action, which actually does cross over one of those supposedly inviolate categories of discrimination, and for arguably negative effect?
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
Particularly when said minority is not having its freedom to act impinged in any meaningful way?
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Read what I said above about how the current marriage laws legitimize one form of relationship, thus illegitimizing all others.
I think what you meant to say was “impinged in any technical way”. Because, yes, gays can still form couples, however, due to the fact that they cannot marry, their relationships are seen as illegitimate, which is meaningful. [/quote]
Again, government’s job is not to convey social “legitimacy.” Or illegitimacy. In either case, it’s an implied perception - hardly something that necessitates a policy change. Really, not even anything that should be considered.
And I wrote precisely what I meant: gays’ freedoms are not impinged in any meaningful way. Gays can form couples, hold themselves out as married, have a private ceremony, purchase property together, leave property to each other, contract for all the other contractual rights enjoyed by spouses. Their freedom to act isn’t impinged.
People’s feelings of legitimacy are not the provence of governmental policy; not only are your feelings your own problem, but the government really shouldn’t be in the business of trying to dictate what should be considered legitimate or illegitmate socially. And the fact that you, or others, want to attribute some immeasurable and inchoate legitimizing effect, irrespective of intent, to a government action really isn’t pertinent.
Seriously, this just sounds like whiny bullcrap to me. “Oh, we need the government to recognize us in order to be legitimate - you’re violating our rights by making us feel bad!” The answer is: Grow a pair, live your life and don’t look to everyone else to legitimize yourself and what you want.
Um, again, not racism. And a horrible analogy irrespective. Suffice it to say that what you claim is irrelevant is the only relevant thing in the above paragraph. You can’t demonstrate a meaningful impingement of freedom. And in countless ways people need to endure ineligibility for government spending programs because the small amount of discrimination in each case is immaterial - just as any in this case would be, were it present. Every time the government spends money on a program it is discriminating against everyone who does not meet the eligibility standards. When it subsidizes farmers, it discriminates against non-farmers, and makes them all feel illegitimate… the horror.
But really, I’m not addressing any more questions of yours on this until you read the linked articles.
I can understand if they don’t want marriage in their Church, but they have no right to stop marriage between two men (or two women, which is hot).[/quote]
They most certainly do. Marriage is for the purpose of begetting children and having parents who will raise the children. Otherwise, why not just live like animals in the forest?
All of this stuff is done by homos just to piss on morality. Its ‘chic’.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
So, again. Are you two wanting to redefine marriage (in regards to government and benefits) in what would still be a relatively narrow scope (based on sex, and 2 consenting adults). Or, do you want it thrown wide open to any arrangement, between any number of consenting adults?[/quote]
Throw it wide open. Remove the government from the picture, or redefine the scope in which marriage benefits are handed out.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Their society was falling apart (sounds familiar) so they tried to remedy it, by getting rid of elements they thought were ruining it. Which came first? I suspect that toerance early on led to decadent behavior later. They should have nipped it in the bud, along with all the other ‘Un-Roman’ vices.[/quote]
Except that homosexuality has been around for longer than the Roman Empire. If anything, cutting back on the orgies may have helped more.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
They most certainly do. Marriage is for the purpose of begetting children and having parents who will raise the children. Otherwise, why not just live like animals in the forest?
All of this stuff is done by homos just to piss on morality. Its ‘chic’.[/quote]
Marriage was for the purpose of forming a tribal alliance and ensuring a stable family unit if we go back to cave man times. It’s not “chic”, it’s them trying to find acceptance.
And we are animals living in the forest. Don’t you forget it.
So, again. Are you two wanting to redefine marriage (in regards to government and benefits) in what would still be a relatively narrow scope (based on sex, and 2 consenting adults). Or, do you want it thrown wide open to any arrangement, between any number of consenting adults?[/quote]
Cap’n Planet - still waiting on your answer.
Makavali has already suggested he would completely dissolve the public institution of marriage, thus destroying it.
What say you? How about a relationship where a bisexual woman wants to be married to both a man and a woman, all consenting adults agreeing to the arrangement?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Makavali has already suggested he would completely dissolve the public institution of marriage, thus destroying it.[/quote]
Pray tell how I would destroy it?
I said remove government interference OR redefine the LEGAL definition. I see nothing wrong with a Church saying “No, we don’t marry gays for religious reasons”, but to try and outright ban homosexuality is just retarded.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
What say you? How about a relationship where a bisexual woman wants to be married to both a man and a woman, all consenting adults agreeing to the arrangement?[/quote]
[quote]Makavali wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Makavali has already suggested he would completely dissolve the public institution of marriage, thus destroying it.
Pray tell how I would destroy it?
I said remove government interference OR redefine the LEGAL definition. I see nothing wrong with a Church saying “No, we don’t marry gays for religious reasons”, but to try and outright ban homosexuality is just retarded.
thunderbolt23 wrote:
What say you? How about a relationship where a bisexual woman wants to be married to both a man and a woman, all consenting adults agreeing to the arrangement?
Nothing wrong with that, and why should there be?[/quote]
Dude, honestly, at that point you’ve given marriage such all encompassing definition, it’s not really sensible to even have the government involved. Just lower tax rates for all adults at that point. And, let them hash out property issues with a lawyer.
P.S. I mean at that point, you might as well let heterosexual roommates marry, if they thought they could recieve some benefit.
A secular government like that of America has no business, and no right, and no justification for enacting laws to support religious traditions.
[/quote]
That is very true, and by staying it is legal for gays to get married they have overstepped their boundaries. But they have also overstepped by making laws regarding marriage in general. It’s a religious institution and as such should not be dictated or managed by the government.
This is my very point. California already had a domestic partners law that allowed gays to have all the SAME rights as would a hetero married couple. So there was no need for a gay marriage law.
It is clear that this new California law is not about gay rights, it’s about changing the concept of marriage. THAT is what the fight is all about. Not rights.
I agree. And since even our money states “In God We Trust”, it is clear the constitution and forefathers wanted freedom OF religion not freedom FROM religion.
Clearly the country is based on a fundamental belief in God without dictating what that belief should entail.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Dude, honestly, at that point you’ve given marriage such all encompassing definition, it’s not really sensible to even have the government involved. Just lower tax rates for all adults at that point. And, let them hash out property issues with a lawyer.
P.S. I mean at that point, you might as well let heterosexual roommates marry, if they thought they could recieve some benefit.[/quote]
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Clearly the country is based on a fundamental belief in God without dictating what that belief should entail.
Am I the only one who see’s that as an argument to let gays get married?[/quote]
No, because that has to do with the country; government, not religion. The government should not be endorsing any marriage (gay or otherwise) period.
Marriage is a religious institution and should stay that way. Then if gays can find a religion that wants to support their marriage, fine, no problem. But it should not be supported by the government.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
No, because that has to do with the country; government, not religion. The government should not be endorsing any marriage (gay or otherwise) period.
Marriage is a religious institution and should stay that way. Then if gays can find a religion that wants to support their marriage, fine, no problem. But it should not be supported by the government. [/quote]
I’m confused now, maybe I read your previous arguments wrong. You don’t mind gay marriage then?
I’ve already stated that the government has no business in the PRIVATE lives of it’s citizens unless the citizen is likely to harm another.
A secular government like that of America has no business, and no right, and no justification for enacting laws to support religious traditions.
That is very true, and by staying it is legal for gays to get married they have overstepped their boundaries.
[/quote]
To say that any particular church must perform a marriage ceremony for two men or two women would be overstepping their boundaries. To give access to the same legal contract known as marriage to two men or two women would not.
I’m not interested in tampering with marriage as a religious tradition – whatever penile mutilating, mock vampiric/cannibalistic cult people are in can ask their invisible man in the sky for permission to fuck, and have fun with the ceremony.
But marriage as a legal act or contract (keep in mind that no church need be involved for a legal marriage, and no church ceremony makes a couple married)… thats another story entirely, especially when the practice fuels fear and hatred as it does.
Agreed. Thing is, nobody is trying to change that, because, for most people, it fits in with their religious views.
This country has a bad history with the “seperate but equal” philosophy. Besides, if the laws were exactly the same, why would there be need to call them different things?
I dont think thats a bad thing. Its not as though the concept hasn’t changed throughout history (women are no longer property, marriages are no longer arranged by others, divorce is now legal).
I think, honestly, the underlying issue is that christians want reaffirmation that they are right, and having legal marriage reflect their religions tradition of marriage gives them reason to feel justified.
Yeah I’m all about getting that off of our money. Freedom of religion entails freedom from religion, if one chooses their religion to be “none”. Its impossible to have freedom to be christian if laws dictate that you act as a muslim.
I think the country was built by those who believed, but saw the importance of not forcing others to believe (or forcing others to act in such a way that would reflect belief) in anything, including god.
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
BostonBarrister: please give me a logical reason, other than homophobia, that allowing gays to marry would negatively impact marriage or procreation among heterosexuals.
BostonBarrister wrote:
Here are two: It could affect the normative behavior of married people, and also affect the societal normative pressure on heterosexuals to marry. Read the links for more.
Now address each of my previous points please.
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
…seriously?
You: It would cause problems?
Me: What problems and why?
You: Uh… it could affect how people act!
Your response here has told me nothing.
HOW AND WHY (I’ll use big letters so you can read them easier) would it affect the normative behavior of married people?
HOW AND WHY would it affect the societal normative pressure on heterosexuals to marry?
Quit repeating the same thing (that it could have an effect), and answer my fucking question.
BostonBarrister wrote:
Tell you what: I’m not re-writing the articles contained in the links that you’re refusing to read. Read the links, particularly the first. Then if you have particularized issues, ask. I know very well that you haven’t read them, because not all of what’s in the links agrees with my positions, and you haven’t pointed this out, which would be the first thing you would do if you had read them. So go along like a good little chap and read up; and if you won’t, to borrow a Briticism, bugger off.
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Here I’ll make another bad attempt at logic (just for shits and giggles): Logic would dictate that a smarter person would understand an article better than a more foolish one. This means, if both read the same article, the smarter person would be better able to answer questions about its content and relate examples from the work.
Its clear to you that you’re the more intelligent of the two of us, yet, having read all three articles, and being asked for an example you would have exacted from them, cannot produce a single one.
Clearly, there is no point in me reading them, since, if you cannot find in them an example of gay marriage leading to a decline in either straight marriage or straight procreation (that is not an example of an act of anti-gay bigotry/bias), I have no hope whatsoever.
It’s amazing that you can manage to be so right, and yet so wrong, at the same time.
I’m not rewriting them because they’re long, the answers are long, and they require the length to cover the bases of the arguments. That’s why I’m providing the links. I’m not about to spend the time trying to condense and/or re-write them. Read them, or quit asking for what you’ve already been provided. Or again, bugger off.
[/quote]
I asked you to pull one example out of them. Guess that was a lot to ask.
Nope. Read below.
And legally supporting the idea that the most healthy, stable environment for reproduction and raising children is a one man one woman couple.
I’ll probably get around to it eventually. Will most likely explain that people will value marriage less because they think allowing gays to marry inherently devalues it – bigotry.
Minorities such as homosexuals? From the majority such as christians? Hmmm… maybe you can, now, draw the line between racism/sexism/homophobia.
Those protects exist exactly so that members of the majority cannot simply say “tough cookies”.
The governments job is to protect the rights of its citizens.
I’m pretty sure the group that has seen the most benefit from affirmative action is white women. How do you feel about that?
So why are you allowing them to do so?
Incorrect.
Sure, as long as you aren’t gay, and don’t care much about their rights, its not meaningful at all.
“hold themselves out as married”? Please.
Agreed. And by structuring their definition of marriage the way they have, they are dictating what is considered legitimate or illegitimate socially. They should stop.
False.
Ignorant.
What would happen if the government didnt incentivize marriage at all, do you think? Not really making a point there, just curious.
Anyway, them incentivizing different forms of marriage would still include incentivizing the traditional form.
Yes, its such a stretch to use compare someone making a decision based on fear of the results of a bigoted response with a decision being made based on fear of the results of a bigoted response.
For what reason are people protected, by the government, against discrimination based on race, sex, religion, etc?
Ok, I’ll try to get around to them over the next few days.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
P.S. I mean at that point, you might as well let heterosexual roommates marry, if they thought they could recieve some benefit.[/quote]
You think this doesn’t happen? My uncle is married to his friend purely for the tax and insurance benefits. They are in no way having relations of any kind.
If marriage has no institutional boundaries, and is defined by the individuals as whatever they want it to be, and the community does not recognize any consistent form of marriage, it ceases to exist. Your “definition” defines it out of existence.
Keep up - I am not suggesting any ban of homosexuality. If you remove government “interference”, you are removing the public’s recognition of a defined institution.
Exactly what I was waiting to hear - and this is exactly why I suggest such adventures in redefinitions will effectively end the institution of marriage. This outlook operates on the presumption that all relationships are of equal value and none deserve privilege over the others - no matter how bizarre or attenuated the relationship becomes.
I don’t indulge in such rank relativism, and no serious adult should either, and so no thanks - marriage is worth preserving.
I wish the gays in California well. In a few short years, the Muslims will be getting their way with marriage, and when they become more numerous, they gay agenda will have a pretty serious problem on its hands, like it now does in Europe.
I encourage the gays to steer clear of UC Irvine on their honeymoon. There’s a particularly militant Muslim student association there. They should also steer clear of the Culver City mosque, and several of the other ones in the Bay Area.
Enjoy it while it lasts. There will be a certain irony to all of this.