AllardIn question 2, Mr. Briggs asked the question “why two?” and later says that we can’t use the historical fact that marriage is traditionally between two people because these people were usually a man and a woman. Usually, means that there are known instances of two males getting married in the past.
Marriage has always been between two people, even in the case of polygamy, where only one person is married to multiple people. Each of these marriages was between two individuals.
To say that tradition and history are not on the side of gay marriage is like saying that a woman is not a person because historically and traditionally women were not considered a person by the law; in fact, until the mid- 19th century they were considered the property of their father or their husband. The one in charge was receiving monetary compensation if the woman got of rape, because of the loss of value of the woman.
Why two? First, because bigamy is illegal; although it is possible, that in the future, society might see it differently. Second, marriage is a contract, and a contract is usually between two peoples or parties, except for few exceptions, even a collective bargaining is a contract between two parties. Third, in our society couples are considered as a single economic unit. This is why the government will transfer the social security benefit to spouses after death of one partner.
The reality is that society evolves and that women are now considered equal to men by the law. Slavery is now illegal even though it is not completely eliminated It also happens that more and more people realizes that gay couples donâ€™t infringe on any of their liberties or freedoms, that what people do in their own bedroom does not concerns anyone as long as it is between two consenting adults.
Mr. Briggs claims that the government cannot define what marriage is, but he failed to notice that by limiting it to a bond between a man and a woman the government is defining what marriage is. In doing so it poses the definition dictated by religion, not by nature. Freedom and liberty apply to each individual. Rights are individual as I explained earlier. One person has the right to think that gay sex is disgusting; while no one is forcing anyone to have gay sex. The person that finds gay sex disgusting still has the right to be disgusted by it. But for the state to limit the definition of marriage to a man and a woman, like it is dictated by religion, infringes upon the freedom of the individual who donâ€™t share the same religious beliefs. By the way, religious beliefs seem to play a large role in if a person is for or against gay marriage, though there are few atheists that are against it.
I answered part of the “Why two?” in Part I. History is no savior for SSM advocates. Mr Allard here says another reason for pairings is because “bigamy is illegal.” That’s either begging the question or a non sequitur. We are arguing whether SSM should be illegal, and SSM isn’t bigamy, which is defined as a man marrying more than one woman or woman marrying more than one man where the extra “partners” are ignorant of each other. But because bigamy is illegal is further historical evidence that society recognized the triumph of man-woman pairings and not that it favored pairings per se. And even if a man is allowed to marry two or more wives (or a woman two or more husbands), this is still irrelevant to whether SSM is right or wrong.
That people once unfairly discriminated against or made slaves of women, blacks, Hispanics, or whomever is irrelevant to whether SSM is right or wrong. No, strike that. It is irrelevant and highly misleading. Even if nobody ever had a choice in their sexual “orientation”, everybody always has a choice about their behavior. Possessing a skin color or biological sex is what makes us human and is not an act or behavior, and cannot be since there is no choice. Possessing a disposition is not an act. An act is an act. We’re asking whether an act is right or wrong. The nearest equivalents to this argument would be those times where societies forbade individuals who committed certain acts from marrying. And what were these? Too obvious, too obvious.
Allard says “that by limiting [marriage] to a bond between a man and a woman the government is defining what marriage is.” I never claimed this: indeed, I claimed the opposite. I said and say the governments historically acted in recognition of the truth that marriage is only man-woman, that government built certain rules and procedures around this truth. I specifically said that any of these government rules—I used Social Security benefits as an example—is not what marriage is. It is curious, however, that in this country’s recent Supreme Court ruling on DOMA, this view of marriage, i.e. “access to benefits,” was its basis. This only proves the fallacy’s popularity—and the left’s inveterate preoccupation with money.
Let me be clear: nobody, and perforce no government, has the right to define what marriage is. All anybody can do is to infer the highly scientific natural answer that marriage is for-life mating of a man and a woman for the purposes of procreation. Anything other than this is not marriage, but something else. To cut off anticipated replies: not everybody gets what they want; that they do not or can not is irrelevant.
Government can of course impel its citizens to obey. It can make people call red “white”. But that would not make red white. It can claim it is the law of the land that cold is “hot” and hot “cold.” The bureaucracy that enforces these laws might not like these precepts, but they will claim they were just following orders.
The governments of Canada, immanently the USA, France and others have assumed this curious mislabeling power. They now insist that everybody must call what is not marriage “marriage” (and to say oppositely, at least in Canada, is now a “hate” crime).
This usurpation has, instead of producing gloom and the kind of unrelenting nausea felt when it is announced one cannot get out of seeing a Roland Emmerich movie, has inspired me. Yes: from this chaff I was able to spin a golden answer, a solution which will satisfy both sides of the debate. So stunning is this stroke that I cannot reveal it until the end of this series. So compelling is it that to show it now would be unfair to Mr Allard, who still has three arguments left.
Whoever does not act like a lady or gentleman in responding will be banned.
You are attempting to use reason with a degenerate follower of Cotton Mather.
Dear Sir: this is about power, holier than thou status, provoking religion yet again, and protected species status [privilege] for Gays.
Considering what these young men gave up to get this privilege, don’t you think it’s a bit mean to deny them it?
Reason? As a method? Are you serious?
If marriage is only about getting children, and nothing else, does this mean that infertile heterosexuals cannot be married? Or if they are married, they must get a divorce if it is found out that they are, or one of them is, infertile?
Regarding whether the answer is scientific, we can proof what marriage was in the past as soon as there is evidence. Like written documents, or clay tablets. Everything before that is conjecture.
And looking at the other great apes, gorilla’s are now polygamous, chimps are monogamous with lots going on on the side and for bonobo’s it is a free-for-all.
But maybe you want to limit this to the genus Homo, or even to Homo Sapiens.
This article and the comments are an exercise of baffle the reader with B.S…Mankind seems to now believe that they are smarter than the highest power.. Our way of thinking is now Mainly controlled by the evil thoughts sent to our brains from Hell..
We – mankind – will enter the after life based on the ruling love that we have and if we love the good uses we will go to heaven and if we love evil we will on our own accord rush headlong into hell. God is only the purest of love and will not send anyone to hell. We are the only ones that can take ourselves to hell and when we make that decision it will be for eternity which is a whole lot longer than the few short years on this earth
RE: “Let me be clear: nobody, and perforce no government, has the right to define what marriage is. All anybody can do is to infer the highly scientific natural answer that marriage is for-life mating of a man and a woman for the purposes of procreation.”
Ah…such quaint & modern notions…too bad history — all of it not just the selectively cherry-picked excerpts — demonstrates a very different story. Consider:
Asserted: “no government, has the right to define what marriage is”
Fact: Governments throughout history and across cultures have defined what marriage is, and is not.
In ancient Rome — a well recorded historical reference point pre-dating any modern value systems (e.g. pre-dating any of the modern religions dominating world society’s today), which ruled pretty much the entire known world, and whose customs in this regard were hardly unique, marriage was a business transaction complete with the exchange of goods covered by formal contract. That’s where the dowry was involved–for most of human civilized history the dowry was a very significant business aspect of the deal. This is observed in numerous sculptures of wedding celebrations in which the central theme, tough small in size, is the contract itself: http://www.vroma.org/images/mcmanus_images/marriagerelief.jpg and http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3370/3473633420_0c98e6f399_z.jpg are illustrative.
Further: Not only did governments dictate what marriage was, they often dictated who could wed whom (or whom could wed who?) by social class distinctions and where the dowry between & among those in power included & implemented treaties and alliances. In merry old medieval times–where even Christianity prevailed–this was how things were. We can observe such arrangements in the way family crests were combined to advertise such arrangements: Here’s a union of two: http://www.medievalweaponinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/0022.jpg ; here it such arranged marriages start getting complicated: http://www.thekeeneredge.com/images/functional_medieval_shield_with_arm_straps_MC_HK-3317.jpg
In other words, governments have been defining what marriage was for a lot longer than Christianity–and those definitions, at their core, extended well into the era of Christianity.
RE: ” All anybody can do is to infer the highly scientific natural answer that marriage is for-life mating of a man and a woman for the purposes of procreation ”
Well…I ‘spoze datz du convenient philosophical approach so useful to setting up a premise that leads inevitably to the answer one wants to reach…but…”anybody” could also study what history has actually recorded…and golly gee with next to no effort one discovers that marriage has been a) a tool of governments independent of any and all religions, AND–shocker– 2) incuded same-sex marriages throughout history and among/across numerous cultures: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions
Why did you ask the question of â€œwhy twoâ€? You know the answer already. Surely, you are not saying that you have no idea why you have married only one woman, the lovely Blonde Bombshell?! You know, gays and straights are very much alike. Gays also aspire to do the right thing and to have a good life. They are human being like us.
â€œEveryone wants a happy life without difficulties or suffering. We create many of the problems we face. No one intentionally creates problems, but we tend to be slaves to powerful emotions like anger, hatred and attachment that are based on misconceived projections about people and things. We need to find ways of reducing these emotions by eliminating the ignorance that underlies them and applying opposing forces.â€ ~The 14th Dalai Lama
A similarity: like some straights some gays aspire to “do the right thing”, other gays like other straights aspire to do the wrong thing. An example of a wrong thing is when gays choose to live together and ask the government to force me to call them “married.” Do you agree with this?
The Dalai Lama aside, I know your argument cannot be that people should be allowed to do whatever gives them happiness, because that’s nuts. Right?
You keep bringing up the behavior of non-human animals as if this is relevant. Curious, that.
I have to dispute the notion that women were property prior to the middle of the 19th century. A slave is property. The trail of law and philosophy going back to the ancients is clear that a man’s wife is not his slave.
However, we really have not answered the “why two” question. And based on the the opinions of Scallia, we are clearly on the slippery slope toward polygamy. And the polygamist will say, why does my multiple marriage do anything to devalue, or change the nature of your binary marriage? And in another 20 years, they may be carrying the popular opinion of that day.
Okay, if we are looking at history for justification, Ken has given us some examples. If we go with history, then incest (siblings marrying), forced marriage, marriage to children and polygamy will all be justified. If “we did it in the past” makes it okay today, we are opening up a huge change in the definition of acceptable marriage. What part of history do we adopt? All forms? That was one of the arguments against allowing gay marriage–it opened the door to every kind of marriage. And here we have that argument apparently being made. Interesting.
(Somehow I cannot see the Dali Lama approving of “doing whatever makes you feel good” as a solution to the lack of happiness in life. I thought he was about self-discipline.)
You are the one talking about the past giving weight to the institution of marriage. How far in the past then? The founding of the United States? The start of Christianity? The city states in Mesopotamia? The start of the agrarian revolution? The end of the Bronze age? Homo Erectus? Australopithecus?
But I’d rather see the answer to the infertility question. Happy to give you a way to evade that question, though.
No, no evasion. I had thought the definition I gave was full. Life is not always fair, and where it cannot be made fair it should not be attempted. Of course, I do not advocate government testing for fertility of marriageable couples. Let’s leave that to their own consciences.
And now you shall tell us why you keep bringing up animal behavior? You realize, naturally (pun there), that you don’t get to pick and choose which animal instincts you wish humans to emulate and which not?
Yeah, right, another example of a wrong thing is that interracial couples had asked the government to force some people to call their â€œinterracial marriageâ€ a marriage.
No,I donâ€™t agree with you. I see the SSM as an issue of equal right and protection under law. I donâ€™t mind sharing the word â€œmarriageâ€ with same sex couples at all. Sorry, I canâ€™t help with your struggle here.
Anyway, imagine for a moment if you were gay, what would you have done? Or imagine if you were in Senator Portmanâ€™s shoes. I am not asking you to accept SSM, but if you could use your imagination, maybe your post wouldn’t have permeated with contempt toward gays.
As you’ll see in the main post, mentioning that some were against interracial marriage is a non sequitur. Some marriages are rightly banned, others not. Can a man marry his sister? Can a man marry his daughter? His son? His mother? (Answers, please.) We’re arguing whether yet another variant should be banned.
You don’t agree? Do you really say that people should be allowed to do whatever gives them happiness?
I’m willing to be educated. Show me where, with quotations, my post is “permeated with contempt toward gays.”
JH–Imagine for a moment you are sexually attracted to six-year-olds. You find no pleasure in sex with adults. Anyone over 12 (or any girl/boy who has entered puberty) is repulsive to you sexually. You can’t get sexual satisfaction without breaking the law. NOW, what do you do???
Equal protection under the Law ceased to be the point of Civil Rights decades ago. What is demanded and granted is privilege. A flood of lawsuits now ensues. As does the assault on the main object of religious liberties, which in the view of the Gay Lobby take a secondary position to “sexual liberties”. That’s their position . For those of you who keep bringing in God, here’s your moment to show it. I don’t by the way expect you to…I expect you to fold. But this is the hour.
Equal Protection? If this doesn’t lead to privilege, the lobbyists are incompetent. The main story in America since the 60s is elites making themselves more elite, usually in the name of equality. If you drank the Kool Aide too bad. For so many of these young people, in particular young men with their commodity of attractive male youth being gay is going to mean a path to higher status, as it has always been for girls. Considering what they’re going to give up, perhaps it’s mercy to grant it.
The Law: Government is Force. When you resort to force, you resort to force. It’s always a “just cause”. The government is force. Now 300 millions will have to accommodate a few hundred thousand, only 100,000 couples are affected at this point. You may have bet correctly. Or on the other hand, your timing may SUCK. We shall see. I think you are being used by dangerous people, but as your not nice people I don’t care if you have bet wrong.
In any case let’s stop with the ridiculous appeals to reason or the Dead Parchment of 1789.
Do you have any gay friends? Maybe you can email them your posts and ask them how they feel.
So explain to me first, why you say â€œmentioning that some were against interracial marriageâ€ is a non sequitur. How about telling me what you think my point is first?
If you, a self-proclaimed moral absolutist, can tell me your absolute moral principle(s) to logically and rationally conclude that SSM is morally wrong, I shall be willing to spend some time to entertain your questions.
To paraphrase Bill Clinton, I can’t help but think this issue may depend on how one defines “defines”. When we say that a government “defines” marriage, what do we mean?
1) That it recognizes the importance to society of the fundamental marital relationship — the economic combination and coordination of a man and a woman to protect and raise the children created by their sexual intimacy — and thus codifies in law (in a variety of arrangements differing by time, place and culture) certain special statuses and protections for those men and women who enter into it?
Or: 2) That it retains the right to dictate what economic and property groups free adults may mutually enter into, and to change which adults do and do not qualify for any given type of group subject only to the normal discretion of its lawful policies, such that if a particular arrangement is not legally defined it “does not exist”?
There are arguments to be made for both definitions, but it would probably aid clarity to know which is being used.
RE Sheri @12:37: “…if we are looking at history for justification, Ken has given us some examples…”
NOT TRUE — I was only making a point to rebut certain assertions…such as Brigg’s assertion that government “has no right to define what marriage is.”
Fundamental to addressing some things is the need to precisely define the words used. That’s especially important when their meaning is generally understood.
“Right” — what is that in the context Briggs asserts? I can guess, but really have no idea. In a broad historical sense I can demonstrate he’s wrong…but that’s not necessarily relevant if he means by that word something else.
Even more fundamental, why argue the point at all????
If one determines that same sex marriage is unnatural, wrong, immoral, icky, whatever…that, for that person/group settles it. And so what … why the fuss over what others do?
The self-delusional mind-game being played here is blatantly obvious to anyone paying the slightest attention: My religion tells me this is wrong (and the religion in play here is “Christianity”)…so I’ll concoct some ‘agnosticish’ argument leading me to the pre-set conclusion.
I’ll take that one step further and assert because this is wrong (or icky, or whatever) I’ll further argue that the government should enforce laws that prevent others–those that hold very different beliefs–from doing what I’ve found to be ‘icky.’
That’s where I see the problem. This pretense of objectivity in reaching a religiously based conclusion, specifically a “Christian” conclusion, is leading people to overreach–to impose their will on others by forcing others to constrain their behavior … a form of puritanical prohibition (remember how well that’s worked in history). There’s nothing in Christianity to endorse that. Nothing…..
….welcome the Prodigal Son back, for example…NOT…set things up such that if he strays he still cannot sin….(but that’s the view repeatedly expressed under the pretense of contrived objectivity)
Christianity was conceived in much much worse and prospered & prevailed. Now, we can read in this blog & elsewhere no end of commentary that gay marriage will erode the institution of marriage, and more. If that’s true, and it may well be, the problem is not with gay marriage, it’s with what Christianity has become that’s made it so vulnerable. If its vulnerable.
The State, if rational, needs to address matters for the benefit of the State overall. Permitting same-sex-marriage does not seem to put the State’s interests at risk–I can’t see any adverse impact I’ll face from this, in this life. If there are some adverse impacts to society, I’m unaware of them — but others (sure to be and remain a tiny, if outspoken, minority) conducting themselves in ways I find inexplicable & repugnant (& pretty much entirely in private) & sure to have some very long-term adverse consequences…it is still not & will not be an issue affecting me that I need to concern myself with.
What I don’t understand is why so many of you think you need to be so concerned about the extension of a State-granted civil formality to a small minority group whose behavior will otherwise continue unchanged. The only substantive effect of permitting gay marriage will be the proliferation of legal documents involving it. More paperwork. Behavior & the number practicing such behavior will stay pretty much the same; maybe we’ll just notice it more…it won’t be that hard to get accustomed to…most of us don’t pay much attention to others anyway, so most of us probably won’t notice anything different. In the meantime, many will continue to talk & write & blog…but after all is said & done, a lot more will have been said than done…
You mean that, to you, SSM is all about sex, and that sexual activities between two grown men are illegal in the US, and that having a romantic feeling toward the same sex is equivalent to with having romantic feeling toward children?
I would do the same thing as you would.
Sorry, Sherri, I typed your name incorrectly.
I find myself a bit confused by the circularity of your argument.
â€œWe are arguing whether SSM should be illegal, and SSM isnâ€™t bigamy â€¦â€
Then why ask why two in the first place! We are talking about same sex couples right to marry. Yet in your original four parts series you brought the suggestion of Boris Dittrich who promote polygamy as the next fight.
I proposed 2 reasons for â€œwhy twoâ€, first, polygamy is illegal, and second, a contract is between two people or parties. Iâ€™m unable to find an example where the contract is between more parties, or at least relevant to our discussion.
Polygamy was illegal in old Western European countries, yet polygamy is legal in many other countries. Is it right or wrong? It is right for some people and wrong for others.
According to the Merriam Webster dictionary the word homosexual appeared in 1892. Yet same sex attraction has been known for thousands of year. Homosexuality was fairly accepted throughout the middle ages. It is only recently that people started seeing it has a bad thing. The word was actually developed by psychiatrists that, in the 19th century, were trying to define what was normal or not.
â€œâ€¦ everybody always has a choice about their behaviorâ€.
Why do you get to decide about someone else behavior, as long as their action are limited to consenting adult.
Even if killing someone is illegal there are over 15,000 murders in the US each year. It is clear that the right to life of a person has precedence over the right of someone else to kill that person. Yet that person could still be killed and society would try to find and condemn the killer, and we often fail. Pickton in Canada killed 49 women before getting caught. He had the choice to not kill and remain free or to kill and be put in prison for life. We can agree that very few people agree that they should be killed, so they donâ€™t give consent to be harm.
I never meant that you claimed â€œthat by limiting [marriage] to a bond between a man and a woman the government is defining what marriage is.â€ But when the government passes a law defining it being a man-woman, the result is that the State did define it. When the court struck down DOMA they remove that definition. What the State does when it allow gay marriage. It really means that the State decide to recognize the contract passed between any two consenting person.
Ken–I misunderstood your intent. Part of the objection to SSM is the same slippery-slope argument. If SSM is okay, how do you deny polygamists? Once you remove the man/woman aspect, there seems to exist no reasons to deny anyone wanting to marry for any reason. Of course, some will say there is, but I cannot conceive of how one denies the right to marry more than one woman or man, etc. Perhaps it’s that marriage is reduced to a government contract, so to speak, and that certainly cheapens the entire institution. To be honest, I have often believed that the correct solution to this and other religion vs government problems is for religion to change the terms it applies to things–call marriage a “sacred joining” (bad example, but it’s the best I have for now), change the date for Christmas to June 30th, etc. Rather than fight the government, just change religious terms and let it go.
JH-Yes, I absolutely am saying having romantic feelings toward the same sex is equivalent to having romantic feelings toward children. There is no reason to believe one sexual orientation (or maybe two) are genetic or normal or whatever while others are not. If you don’t choose who you love, you don’t choose. (I am not saying SSM is all about sex nor that homosexuality is illegal, although it was in the past so laws can change, including those concerning sex and children. I am saying it is about people getting what they want whether anyone likes it or not. It’s about them being equal to everyone else. Thus, my question on what the pedophile is supposed to do–it seems unfair to deny him his only desire. It seems cruel to label him evil or mentally ill because his sexual orientation is different from much of the population. Yet we do.)
This is not correct; it is a reductio ad absurdum, a perfectly valid form of argumentation.
Now a posteriori, and knowing the propensities of human nature, a slippery slope argument can be mounted, but it is secondary and parasitical on the reductio.
Bigamy is not the same as polygamy. Briggs asked “Why two?” and you bring in bigamy which is not simply one person marrying more than one partner, but is one person marrying more than one partner all of whom think that they are in an exclusive marriage. Bigamy is not illegal just because of the multiple spouses, but because as a matter of definition bigamy is a form of fraud.
Just take polygamy then. Simple confusion in translation. For me the difference was just in number of marriage, Bigamy 2, Polygamy more than 2.
“What I donâ€™t understand is why so many of you think you need to be so concerned about the extension of a State-granted civil formality to a small minority group whose behavior will otherwise continue unchanged.”
Because the movement behind that extension of formality has, does, and will use it as a wedge to legally punish anyone who wishes to criticize or disagree with their position. Up here in Canada, stand-up comedian Guy Earle was sued for $15,000 by a lesbian couple in his audience who took offense to some jokes he made at their expense; in Boston, Catholic adoption agencies were forced out of business rather than allow them to maintain their own standards that children be placed only with a mother and a father. Wedding photographers, or state commissioners, whose conscience would not let them do business with or personally approve licenses for gay or lesbian couples have been sued for it (even if they provided alternate suppliers with no tangible inconvenience to the couples in question). And there is no indication that this is likely to decline.
The economic arrangements of private citizens are their own business. Using the law to criminalize the expression of criticism or disagreement, or to serve as a mechanism for political vindictiveness, is something else entirely, and something I do not think you have to agree on sexual morality to find troubling.
The Pro SSM side is quick to argue that their redefinition of the word ‘marriage’ will not impact married couples so why object? Since that is a good argument if not rebutted, allow me to propose another one.
Now that Justice Kennedy has imposed his redefinition of the word ‘marriage’ upon the US, there is little argument remaining that it can’t be equally be redefined by some future 5-4 decision of the SCOTUS. This decision being lawless and almost devoid of rational thought, it isn’t an absurdity to imagine multiple/group marriage being discovered to be a ‘human right’ in the not so distant future. For the argument I’m about to make it isn’t required to agree with the rightness of group marriage or even the notion that the SCOTUS is likely to do it, only that the belief that the event is now firmly inside the realm of the possible isn’t a crazy one to hold.
Should that happen, the notion of survivor’s benefits (insurance, Social Security, etc.) aren’t economically feasable for surviving spouses OR offspring. That does indeed impact married couples, the continuation of society, the whole civilization.
 And yes, it is a ‘redefinition’ unless you can point me to a dictionary that defines the word such that it could encompass M-M or F-F unions printed prior to the 20th Century. And I could probably extend that challenge to pre-1950 and not risk much unless the hard core progs at some uni had taken over a dictionary by then.
Is it your suggestion that it is a good idea to bully minority. Or that minorities merit to be, or should, ridiculed.
> Or that minorities merit to be, or should, ridiculed.
Not to speak for anyone else but me, but yes. Even when it is in poor taste, inpolite or even cringeworthy. Making fun of people should not be reserved only for self criticism of the Jeff Foxworthy sort.
It ain’t funny until somebody gets hurt, then its hilarious. Sorry, but the world is like that, most humor is is at somebody’s expense. Male comics make (often unflattering) dating/marriage jokes about the women in their lives. And of course female comics return the favor. Whole books used to be written of [insert stereotype here] jokes. Nowadays some comedians are allowed to make jokes about some stereotypes while other combinations are career killers. That is insane.
How long until Eddie Murphy’s classic comedy films are banned and a crime to possess? And that thar stuff was and is funny, I don’t care who ya are.
In part one:
” Pity Bill Whatcott! Made to grovel before judges for using the words â€œdetestationâ€ and â€œvilificationâ€.”
And in part two:
“The governments of Canada, immanently the USA, France and others have assumed this curious mislabeling power. They now insist that everybody must call what is not marriage â€œmarriageâ€ (and to say oppositely, at least in Canada, is now a â€œhateâ€ crime).”
This is blatantly false and you should retract or rephrase.
If you read the Canadian Supreme Court opinion about William Whatcott you rapidly understand that the reason he was condemned has nothing to do with religion or the bible. But it has everything to do with the language he used.
1-) Whatcott never used the terms â€œdetestationâ€ and â€œvilification”. These words represent part of the burden of proof the complainant has to meet to prove that someone promote “hate speech”.
2-) The expressions he used that were declared unlawful were:
“ Whether or not Mr. Whatcott intended his expression to incite hatred against homosexuals, in my view it was reasonable for the Tribunal to hold that, by equating homosexuals with carriers of disease, sex addicts, pedophiles and predators who would proselytize vulnerable children and cause their premature death, Flyers D and E would objectively be seen as exposing homosexuals to detestation and vilification.”
3-) For example, the level of discussion seen on your blog would not be consider hate speech. Right now our different is limited to rational argument. So people in Canada are free to disagree with SSM.
I accept the correction that Walcott did not use these words, and that Canada removes the freedom of speech to detest or vilify—even those behaviors which are detestable and that should be vilified. Quoting from the bible is now “hate” speech.
See also Part III.
No answers yet?
It seems that the only thing you and Briggs get out of Justice Kennedyâ€™s opinion is that â€œI want it.â€ I disagree, and I donâ€™t deny that my prejudice and life experiences have a lot to do with the disagreement. Letâ€™s leave at that.
Not answering the questions could be construed and is probably (but not certainly) proof that “I want it” is the only reason you have to support SSM.
Same question to you. Though, based on my experiences of asking you questions, I donâ€™t expect you to give me answers or to reaffirm that you get my points. I do now feel like a nag, because I have asked the same question about your absolute moral principles on SSM again and again and again and again and … So itâ€™s only fair that you give me your answer to this question.
(BTW, picking on what Dalai Lama says only shows your affinity toward absurdity as if you possess superior logic, and in the mean time you miss the points just like you miss Sennâ€™s points, so I shall never response to that. I think I should be very honest with you, as it seems that itâ€™s the only way to get my point across. Yes, being honest can be done better in person because youâ€™d actually see that I mean no disrespect. )
Yes, I am sure gays want SSM to be recognized, just like I am sure that “you don’t want it.” If you want me to elaborate further, please answer my question.
If you’ve asked me a question which I missed, I apologize. It was unintentional. My absolute moral principles against SSM I had thought were perfectly clear, and are laid out over a few thousand words in this and the original series. I’m not sure how I can be any clearer than all the counter-arguments I gave, but if you have a specific question that you think I evaded, point me to it or ask again and I’ll answer it here.
Meanwhile, you owe us the same courtesy of answering the questions I asked above, and all of them, which I repeat here:
Update And don’t forget you were going to show with specific examples where my post was “permeated with contempt toward gays.”
(We can talk about Senn’s mistakes and misunderstandings in the Senn thread.)
No big deal, a lot of people in the US make the same mistake. They see the word bigamy and they assume it means exactly two spouses, but that’s not how the word is defined in US law. The number of spouses is irrelevant beyond requiring more than 1, it’s the fraud element that makes it bigamy.
Yes, you have put forth several arguments against SSM.
1. It’s not a tradition that YOU practice.
2. YOU define marriage as strictly between a man and a woman.
3. Gays contract sexual transmitted diseases, but â€œYOUâ€ donâ€™t.
4. SSM will lead to bestiality and polygamy. (Donâ€™t think predictions are any kind of absolutes.)
5. SSM is a case of â€œI want it, â€ not â€œYOU donâ€™t want it.â€
6. Gay couples canâ€™t produce offspring like YOU do.
7. Homosexual behaviors are not what YOU practice.
8. SSM will force YOU to call their union â€œmarriage,â€ which harms YOUR marriage and YOU emotionally.
9. Itâ€™s wrong that gays ask the government (SCOTUS) to abolish DOMA and they succeeded.
10. SSM is not a good environment to raise kids, but hetero-marriage is by default.
(Have I missed any of your augments? I admit I donâ€™t have perfect memory, and have been spending time on some self-inflicted work instead of your posts lately. )
Which one of the above are qualified as ABSOLUTE MORAL principles that lead you to conclude that SSM is morally wrong?
Oh, one more.
11. SSM is not natural to YOU.(I don’t think you have shown that “naturality” is a moral absolute and is a requirement for being moral.)
Oh for shame, JH. You have neglected to answer uncomfortable questions put to you yet again: a bad habit. So I’ll request in your next comments you please do so.
But since I am such a sweetheart, I’ll still answer yours. (Truly, the numbering is helpful.)
1. It’s not a tradition anyone anywhere practiced, up until recently.
2. I do not. That happens to be the definition; I merely repeat it. It is both the scientific and natural law definition.
3. This is scurrilous. I never made any statement on this subject.
4. Bestiality is already legal in places, and people have and increasingly are asking to “marry” their animals. In the original series, I gave links to specific cases. Same with polygamy. Do a search and you will see that after the Court’s ruling last week, op-eds in several leading publications made a plea for polygamy.
5. I agree. SSM is a case of “I want it” for supporters.
6. True (or at all except by looking outside their “marriages”).
7. Very true.
8. Also true. But it will not just hurt me, but you, too; and society as a whole.
9. Given the presence of DOMA, it was wrong, as you say, for people to have asked for its overturning. But I would rather it never existed in the first place. I am Hamiltonian on this.
10. Also true, I agree.
11. SSM is not natural to anybody. It is an extra-biological, purely political arrangement.
The ABSOLUTE MORAL principles against SSM are encased in these responses and in the few thousand words I expended here and in the original series. But perhaps you are asking whether there are any absolute moral principles? Certainly there are. Do you say there are not? (Answer this one too, please.)
AS you have said to me once – one problem at a time.
Yeah, right, it’s scientific and natural law definition, just like your definition of “mother”. (Let’s forget about this, as I shall let you bask in your love of your own views.)
You have just basically told me whether I have correctly summarized your arguments. However, you have not demonstrated to me anywhere that any of them are ABSOLUTE MORAL principles in your posts.
Encase in these responses?! *sigh*
Pick one, just one, and show me logically and rationally that it’s an ABSOLUTE moral absolute.
Oh, please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_absolutism
BTW, I used *YOU* in my summary because I want to emphasize the point that there are obviously people who don’t agree with you.
My dear friend and colleague, you must bring yourself to answer the questions I put to you. Not answering gives the appearance you cannot answer, or do not wish to because the answers would be unpalatable to you and damage your position.
I did not put these questions lightly. I still await your response, which I assume you are working on (I know you are busy).
The questions were to show that is it necessary that society draws lines. Can a man marry his sister? His daughter? His brother, mother, son, dog? Surely not. And why not? Because it is absurd and because it goes against our nature. As does SSM. I have, as I’ve told you many, many times, written thousands of words and several arguments proving this. You have not refuted any of these, other than to say (in effect) “I want it.” But that cannot be the basis of a proof. I hope you see why.
I saw your link. The first sentence read “Moral absolutism is an ethical view that certain actions are absolutely right or wrong, regardless of other circumstances such as their consequences or the intentions behind them.” This is right. Do you agree? Answer, please. Note that it does not say, and it is not true, that all actions are absolutely right or wrong: just that at least some are.
Would you consider this acceptable as free speech for an Imam to say something like that:
“Christians (or Catholics) who want to remain in their lifestyle and proselytize vulnerable young people that civil law should discriminate against them;
Our children will pay the price in disease, death, abuse . . . if we do not say no to the christian desire to socialize your children into accepting something that is clearly wrong.”
Anne Coulter said after the Boston bombing that the wife (a white American should be put to jail for wearing a hijab.
There are limit to free speech.
Please delete my previous submission.
â€œMoral absolutism is an ethical view that certain actions are absolutely right or wrong, regardless of other circumstances such as their consequences or the intentions behind them.â€ This is right. Do you agree? Answer, please.
Of course, I agree. Why wouldnâ€™t I? Itâ€™s just a brief description of moral absolutism.
Note that it does not say, and it is not true, that all actions are absolutely right or wrong: just that at least some are.
Isnâ€™t this what I have implied when I said somewhere, â€œEven if I agree that moral absolutes exist, it doesnâ€™t mean there exist one or more principles for judging the morality of SSMâ€¦â€?
Is SSM absolutely wrong to you then? I have the impression that you believe so, and hence I asked for absolute moral rules (principles) that afford you to conclude that SSM morally wrong.
If I understand correctly, you’ve just gave me one such rule. That is: SSM is against our nature just like for a man to marry his sister or daughter or his brother or mother is against our nature, therefore itâ€™s immoral.â€
(I surely haven’t read about this before! Where have you said this?)
You are not saying that there is a logical connection between what is in natural and what out to be in human morality, are you?
How did Adam and Eveâ€™s family multiply?
(It sounds like that you probably think Einstein who married his first cousin is an immoral person.)
I seem to remember that you claim SSM is unnatural because it doesnâ€™t lead to procreation.
For instance, father-and-daughter relation, assuming consenting adults, meets your definition of marriage being “one man to one woman,â€ and they can procreate. Incest was practiced by royalties to preserve royal blood in history.
So, why is it unnatural now? Is it wrong and illegal due to its un-naturality (Is there such a word)?
I remember reading somewhere that the societal objections to incest have to with the associated risk for conceiving children with birth defects and the existing social relationship between a father and a mother.
I see it differently, banning SSM rob gaysâ€™ human dignity and right to thrive and happiness according to their nature. Itâ€™s evident that whether the recognition of SSM has or would hurt you is no priority in my view.
Oh, if “I want it” is the only thing you got out of the majority opinion of SCOTUS, why would I want to refute your such claim?
Correction: You are not saying that there is a logical connection between what is in natural and what OUGHT to be in human morality, are you?