Gay And Interracial Marriage

[Socrates]

[quote name='OraProMe' timestamp='1283407093' post='2166819']
Not really. It rests on the belief that the primary purpose of marriage is procreation which is dUsts own personal religious belief which, when we're talking about civil marriage for people who don't share his faith, shouldn't come into the debate.
[/quote]
Procreation and family is an integral part of what marriage was originally about.
The modern "gay rights" movement seeks to redefine "marriage" to mean something completely different.

dUSt's example with the dogs does a great job of proving that "discriminating" on the sex of the people getting married cannot legitimately be compared to discrimination based on an arbitrary feature like race.

If the courts are free to completely redefine the meaning of marriage to whatever they please, why limit the number of people in a marriage to two? Why exclude people from marrying children, parents, brothers and sisters, pets, or inanimate objects? We mustn't discriminate.

(And before you get your panties in a wad over pedophilia or bestiality, who said marriage need have anything at all to do with sex?)

[CatherineM]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1283449436' post='2167043']
There are many societies where marriage has not meant "one man one woman".
[/quote]
I guess I was focusing on the societies where gay marriage is being pushed. In societies where marriages meant one man and many women, gay marriage isn't so much of an issue for some reason.

[OraProMe]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1283450289' post='2167053']
Procreation and family is an integral part of what marriage was originally about.
[/quote]
Proof please. Also, as we're talking civil marriage, could you provide anything from the laws governing marriage which state that procreation is an integral part of marriage. In my country the marriage act defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman, it doesn't say anything about children and I really doubt it's any different in America.

[quote]
The modern "gay rights" movement seeks to redefine "marriage" to mean something completely different.
[/quote]
I'm sure any homosexuals who want to get married are looking to start a family, either between themselves or with children.

[quote]
If the courts are free to completely redefine the meaning of marriage to whatever they please, why limit the number of people in a marriage to two? Why exclude people from marrying children, parents, brothers and sisters, pets, or inanimate objects? We mustn't discriminate.

(And before you get your panties in a wad over pedophilia or bestiality, who said marriage need have anything at all to do with sex?)
[/quote]

I never really get why people make this "slippery slope" argument. By the same logic I could say we shouldn't allow marriage for anyone at all because if we allow the heterosexuals to wed then soon the gays will be wanting in then the pedophiles, then brothers and sisters etc.

As if the lawmakers are too stupid to see any difference between the union of two consenting adults and the union of a man with a child or a man with an animal. Altering the definition to include homosexuals doesn't mean marriage becomes a free for all.

If you can define marriage as the union of a male and a female without risking the "slippery slope" then you can define marriage as the union of two persons without risking the slippery slope.

Edited September 3, 2010 by OraProMe

[Sarah147]

It makes me wonder how the human race descended from Adam and Eve, without genetic defects from the close relationships.

[dUSt]

[quote name='OraProMe' timestamp='1283476753' post='2167296']
If you can define marriage as the union of a male and a female without risking the "slippery slope" then you can define marriage as the union of two persons without risking the slippery slope.
[/quote]
Your sentence makes little sense.

The point is, marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. That is what it is. You can't change what it is.

If two homosexuals want to get married, they can't. They can call it marriage, but it's not. Marriage already has a definition. My advice is to come up with a different word, like unionized, or ho-melded, or fused. Something like that.

Now, back to your sentence.

[i]"If you can define marriage as the union of a male and a female without risking the "slippery slope" then you can define marriage as the union of two persons without risking the slippery slope."[/i]

That's like saying:

[i]If you can define the color purple as the union of blue and red without risking the "slippery slope" then you can define the color purple as the union of blue and blue without risking the slippery slope.[/i]

The logic completely fails.

[OraProMe]

[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1283481433' post='2167328']
Your sentence makes little sense.

The point is, marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. That is what it is. You can't change what it is.

If two homosexuals want to get married, they can't. They can call it marriage, but it's not. Marriage already has a definition. My advice is to come up with a different word, like unionized, or ho-melded, or fused. Something like that.

Now, back to your sentence.

[i]"If you can define marriage as the union of a male and a female without risking the "slippery slope" then you can define marriage as the union of two persons without risking the slippery slope."[/i]

That's like saying:

[i]If you can define the color purple as the union of blue and red without risking the "slippery slope" then you can define the color purple as the union of blue and blue without risking the slippery slope.[/i]

The logic completely fails.
[/quote]

What I said makes perfect sense. The key difference is that you (and most members of this forum) regard marriage as an institution that finds its origin in God. If this were the case then you'd be correct in saying that the definition of marriage cannot be changed by humans. If, like me, you regard marriage as a social construct then the definition can certainly be changed to accomodate homosexuals.

You said "If two homosexuals want to get married, they can't. They can call it marriage, but it's not. Marriage already has a definition. My advice is to come up with a different word, like unionized, or ho-melded, or fused. Something like that." But remember that in the eyes of the state that is all marriage is, a legally binding contract between two people. There's no spiritual dimension to marriage in the eyes of the State, it's just a civil contract that is currently limited to two people who are members of different genders.

The problem is that in Western countries the State really can't justify accepting marriage as a divinely instituted covenant without violating the principle of separation of Church and State found in the constitution of both your country and mine.

Edited September 3, 2010 by OraProMe

[OraProMe]

I'll just condense my argument into two questions and I think you guys will see what I mean.

1. Assume for a second that marriage is a human construct rather than a sacrament. If this were so then would humans be able to alter its definition? CatherineM has already pointed out that the meaning of words changes constantly and the State has certainly altered legislation in the past so, if marriage were merely a human construct, then there's nothing that makes its definition immutable. Right?

2. In a country that recognizes the separation of Church and State, a right to individual liberty and has commited itself not to favour one set of beliefs over another do you think it's appropriate for the State to adopt a religious definition of marriage?

[Socrates]

[quote name='OraProMe' timestamp='1283476753' post='2167296']
Proof please. Also, as we're talking civil marriage, could you provide anything from the laws governing marriage which state that procreation is an integral part of marriage. In my country the marriage act defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman, it doesn't say anything about children and I really doubt it's any different in America.[/quote]
Children come from the conjugal union of a man and a woman. Without the union of man and woman, the human race cannot procreate. Marriage provides a stable environment for the procreation and raising of these children. That's the reason (independent of any specifically religious reasons) that society recognizes and supports marriage between man and woman.

By nature, children cannot come any kind of "union" other than that between a man and a woman, so there is no reason to support other groupings of people as "marriage."


[quote]I'm sure any homosexuals who want to get married are looking to start a family, either between themselves or with children.[/quote]
Again, two persons of the same sex cannot make children. (See dUSt's example with the German shepherds.)


[quote]I never really get why people make this "slippery slope" argument. By the same logic I could say we shouldn't allow marriage for anyone at all because if we allow the heterosexuals to wed then soon the gays will be wanting in then the pedophiles, then brothers and sisters etc.[/quote]
It's not really a "slippery slope" argument, but a logical argument to make you think about the reason why we recognize marriage between a man and a woman, and not between other pairs or groups of people.

I'll bring up two examples which completely leave the kiddies and animals out of it.

1) Say a group of five siblings, three brothers and two sisters, live together in the same house, and are very close to one another (though in a completely chaste and non-sexual way). They want to get "married" to another to get tax breaks, and in order for society to recognize their deep fraternal love.

2) A man lives with and takes care of his elderly mother, and again, there is no nastiness going on between them. He wants to have the state recognize him and his mother as being "married" for similar reasons.

In both those cases, there's nothing at all immoral in the "relationships," yet they could not constitute a marriage, and there's no reason the state must recognize them as such.
These cases all involve "consenting adults."
Would you say the state must allow those people to be "married" to one another?
If not, why not? And if you say they need not be recognized as "married," then why must a homosexual couple?
Are you saying that homosexual sodomy somehow is something more in need of being supported by society than the other two cases?

[Socrates]

[quote name='OraProMe' timestamp='1283491710' post='2167359']
I'll just condense my argument into two questions and I think you guys will see what I mean.

1. Assume for a second that marriage is a human construct rather than a sacrament. If this were so then would humans be able to alter its definition? CatherineM has already pointed out that the meaning of words changes constantly and the State has certainly altered legislation in the past so, if marriage were merely a human construct, then there's nothing that makes its definition immutable. Right?

2. In a country that recognizes the separation of Church and State, a right to individual liberty and has commited itself not to favour one set of beliefs over another do you think it's appropriate for the State to adopt a religious definition of marriage?
[/quote]
1. Yeah, you can assume that (I'd argue that marriage is a natural law institution for the procreation and raising of children, rather than exclusively a Catholic sacrament, but that's another argument). If we go with your assumption, then yeah, marriage can mean absolutely whatever the heck people decide it to mean. But then any meanings become completely arbitrary, and ultimately pointless, so then its pointless to argue about them. If the laws and society want to redefine "marriage" to mean "a hockey team," then, yeah, under your assumptions, they can go ahead and do that. But then, what's the whole point?
If the people of a state, in a purely human construct, wish to legally define marriage as between a man and a woman, why should you have a problem with it? It's a purely human construct, after all.


2. I'm not that familiar with the law Down Under, but the phrase "separation of Church and State" is nowhere listed in the U.S. Constitution, and in any case is totally irrelevant to defining marriage as between man and woman. Legally, marriage laws are nowhere mentioned in the Constitution, and the 10th Amendment to the Constitution explicitly states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The people of the state of California (and many other states) have voted and decided on that matter.

Defining marriage as between man and woman does not establish a state church, nor does it necessarily involve any particular religious beliefs at all. People of many different religions are against the state recognizing same-sex "marriages," and one could wish to define marriage as only between a man and a woman without belonging to any church or religion at all, on purely natural law grounds.

If you want to argue that it's all a purely human construct, it shouldn't matter one way or the other.

Voting on whether marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman, is not in itself religious. It's a simple democratic vote.
Or are you arguing that the votes of people who happen to be religious church-goers should be counted as less than those of voters who are atheistic or nihilistic in their outlook?

Edited September 3, 2010 by Socrates

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='OraProMe' timestamp='1283490892' post='2167356']
If, like me, you regard marriage as a social construct then the definition can certainly be changed to accomodate homosexuals.
[/quote]

Then you must also believe that the definition of marriage, as a social construct, can be changed to accommodate [u]any[/u] two (or more) people who want to get married. Right?

[Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam]

[quote name='HisChildForever' timestamp='1283536285' post='2167484']
Then you must also believe that the definition of marriage, as a social construct, can be changed to accommodate [u]any[/u] two (or more) people who want to get married. Right?
[/quote]

And before someone starts arguing that again this is a slippery slope in order to try to circumvent the point HisChildForever is trying to make, rest assured this is not a slippery slope. It is a standard logical move of trying to provide a counter example that everyone acknowledges as illogical/wrong and fits the definition as well as the logical construction in such a way as to prove a defintion/line of argument invalid (that is if you even acknowledge that there is a standard of reason that can be expressed in a meta-language of symbolic logic as opposed to an assertion of some Nietzschean Ubermenschean enforcement of will upon the world). It is logical to show how an argument is absurd when taken to its natural ends. One must be careful not to confuse a reductio argument to the absurd with a slippery slope fallacy.

Edited September 3, 2010 by Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam

[MithLuin]

I think that no-fault divorce has created such a crisis of modern marriages that no one recognizes their purpose any more. I think the concept of 'gay marriage' is nonsensical, but I also think the idea of 'temporary' marriage is far more damaging to the institution.

The reality is that many gay couples are raising children. One could ask where they obtained these children. In some cases, they adopted or went through a sperm donor process. But in many cases? The child(ren) are the biological offspring of one member of the couple who had a previous heterosexual relationship (likely even a marriage) which later broke up.

So now, the gay couples can argue that extending the civil definition of marriage to include them will help to create stable families in which to raise children - with a straight face.

If marriages were more binding and you couldn't just walk away from them, I think that would create a better understanding of the responsibilities associated with this fundamental institution in our societies.


If you want to know what marriage was like in non-Christian societies, you don't have to look much further than Roman law. To suggest that it is somehow a 'Christian' or 'religious' idea that the purpose of marriage is to form families and raise children is to miss the point - the survival of the human race depends upon our ability to raise our children. We fail at that, and our civilization fails. It's most certainly a civil issue!

[quote]

The chief purpose of Roman matrimony, as stated in marriage contracts and various laws, was the obvious one of producing and bringing up children. The Roman government often made efforts to encourage marriage and large families; in particular, the Emperor Augustus introduced a law which laid down penalties for those who remained unmarried (for example, by forbidding them to receive legacies; see bachelor) and offered special privileges to married couples who produced three or more children. Nevertheless the birth rate in Rome dropped steadily from the second century BC onwards, especially among the senatorial class.

[url=http://web.nickshanks.com/history/roman-marriage](source)[/url][/quote]

[Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam]

[quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1283645018' post='2167977']
I think that no-fault divorce has created such a crisis of modern marriages that no one recognizes their purpose any more. I think the concept of 'gay marriage' is nonsensical, but I also think the idea of 'temporary' marriage is far more damaging to the institution....
If you want to know what marriage was like in non-Christian societies, you don't have to look much further than Roman law. To suggest that it is somehow a 'Christian' or 'religious' idea that the purpose of marriage is to form families and raise children is to miss the point - the survival of the human race depends upon our ability to raise our children. We fail at that, and our civilization fails. It's most certainly a civil issue!
[/quote]

[quote]The chief purpose of Roman matrimony, as stated in marriage contracts and various laws, was the obvious one of producing and bringing up children. The Roman government often made efforts to encourage marriage and large families; in particular, the Emperor Augustus introduced a law which laid down penalties for those who remained unmarried (for example, by forbidding them to receive legacies; see bachelor) and offered special privileges to married couples who produced three or more children. Nevertheless the birth rate in Rome dropped steadily from the second century BC onwards, especially among the senatorial class.[/quote]

Agreed. It seems that the government has the greatest vested interest in stable families and in strong marriages; however, our government seems to be the last one to realize this.

[Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam]

Double post. Sorry.

Edited September 7, 2010 by Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam

[rizz_loves_jesus]

Five people voted that states should have the right to ban interracial marriage. FIVE PEOPLE. Either PM has a serious troll problem or there are some horrible, horrible people on this site.

Edited September 7, 2010 by rizz_loves_jesus