1. rights are not decided by mob rule.

2. then infertile and elderly people should not be allowed to be married.

3. in a constitutional republic the majority does not get to vote to marginalise the rights of minorities

4. the definition of marriage has changed constantly throughout history and across the globe.

quote:

---

1. Actually, the voters in California voted to amend the state constitution to prohibit SSM, and the courts stepped in to overturn the valid state constitutional amendment process. Time and time again the courts insert themselves where they do not have "jurisdiction" and the people are left without recourse.

---

The people cannot enact a state constitutional amendment that violates the US constitution. This is basic high school government. If you disagree with the Court's reasoning for striking down this provision, fine, but the courts definitely do have jurisdiction over determining whether a state law, even a state constitutional amendment, is constitutional under the US constitution.

See my example above about a hypothetical state constitutional amendment that would clearly be unconstitutional. The federal courts could and should strike down such provisions, even if every single voter in a state supports it.

quote:

---

2. I agree...anyone who enters into a relationship similar to me and my wife (where intercourse may lead to the creation of human life where the offspring would be genetically linked to both of us) should be treated equally and called marriage. Any relationship that differs from that relationship should NOT be referred to by marriage.

---

So post-menopausal women are ineligible from marriage under your scheme?

quote:

---

3. We live in a Constitutional Republic. This does not constitute mob-rule. The courts dictating their will and legislating from the bench amounts to tyrannical government that is not of, for, and by the people. The courts are acting outside of their constitutional authority.

---

Checks and balances. If courts didn't decide what is and is not constitutional you would be left with mob rule. Again, feel free to disagree with the opinions and their reasoning, but they're not acting outside their authority. I've always found it odd how the same people who accuse judges of "legislating from the bench" when they strike down a gay marriage ban were furious when the Supreme Court refused to strike down Obamacare.

quote:

---

4. Changing the definition and make-up of Marriage is absolutely attacking marriage as an institution, as the nature of marriage would not be the same after. That is the very reasons that emotions and convictions are so strong on this subject. As I have stated, I think the vast majority of Americans support equal rights for gay partners, but the vast majority oppose calling it marriage. Just call it anything but marriage and make the laws equal and then nobody has to argue this anymore.

---

I don't know how many ways we can explain that the very act of creating a separate system for a certain group of people is inherently unequal.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

I have no idea. Please enlighten me as to why we have a legal system? also, is the judicial branch a co-equal branch of government, or is it above the legislative branch able to overturn the will of the people whatever?


....And I think Chuckd hit the nail on the head with the son, daughter, child example. There are different terms based on the sex of the people. That is the spirit of what i am proposing. If there needs to be a "Child" term call it a "Legal Partnership" or whatever, but a marriage would be defined only by a man+woman. Call the rest whatever you want

---

I'll answer with a question. Why did Loving vs. Virginia have to happen? Why wasn't interracial marriage left up to the states?

---

Admittedly, I am not a constitutional scholar but I will play along.... In Loving vs. Virginia there was a clear violation of the 14th amendment under the equal protection clause. Clearly this was well within the jurisdiction of the US Supreme Court and the correct verdict was rendered. Please explain where/how the federal judiciary has the authority to make a judgment on same-sex marriage? The 14th amendment does not and did not address the issue of sexual orientation...the 14th amendment was about race.

---

So you at least agree that the job of the courts is to determine the constitutionality of laws passed by states.
Then you must also agree that states cannot pass laws that violate the Constitution even if they have majority of popular support. If someone argues that a state law violates the Constitution, then it is relevant to the federal judiciary. For example, Prop 8 in California making it to the 9th Circuit. The 14th amendment addresses equal protection which was ruled to be be violated by Prop 8. Also, the 14th amendment is not limited just to racial difference. Can you show me where in the equal protection clause it specifies that it only applies to racial decisions? I sure can't find it, but I do see where it says "any person."

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

quote:

---

1. Actually, the voters in California voted to amend the state constitution to prohibit SSM, and the courts stepped in to overturn the valid state constitutional amendment process. Time and time again the courts insert themselves where they do not have "jurisdiction" and the people are left without recourse.

---

quote:

---

The people cannot enact a state constitutional amendment that violates the US constitution. This is basic high school government. If you disagree with the Court's reasoning for striking down this provision, fine, but the courts definitely do have jurisdiction over determining whether a state law, even a state constitutional amendment, is constitutional under the US constitution.

See my example above about a hypothetical state constitutional amendment that would clearly be unconstitutional. The federal courts could and should strike down such provisions, even if every single voter in a state supports it.

---

The state court upheld the measure as Constitutional, which was then overturned by a federal judge. I guess we will find out this summer what the SC will say...but can you articulate the specific federal constitutional foundation for gay marriage?

quote:

---

2. I agree...anyone who enters into a relationship similar to me and my wife (where intercourse may lead to the creation of human life where the offspring would be genetically linked to both of us) should be treated equally and called marriage. Any relationship that differs from that relationship should NOT be referred to by marriage.

---

quote:

---

So post-menopausal women are ineligible from marriage under your scheme?

---

I am not going to dignify this with a response.

quote:

---

3. We live in a Constitutional Republic. This does not constitute mob-rule. The courts dictating their will and legislating from the bench amounts to tyrannical government that is not of, for, and by the people. The courts are acting outside of their constitutional authority.

---

quote:

---

Checks and balances. If courts didn't decide what is and is not constitutional you would be left with mob rule. Again, feel free to disagree with the opinions and their reasoning, but they're not acting outside their authority. I've always found it odd how the same people who accuse judges of "legislating from the bench" when they strike down a gay marriage ban were furious when the Supreme Court refused to strike down Obamacare.

---

Courts have a legitimate role UNDER the constitution, but once the court steps outside of their proper constitutional role they become legislative in nature. The framers of our government went to great lengths to limit the power and reach of ALL three branches of our government. The legislative was given the broadest authority and the only branch that could make law and the power of the purse. The courts have been guilty of overreaching their role time and time again, and often go way beyond their Constitutional scope without recourse. This was the case with Obamacare where the courts REWROTE the legislation in order to make it constitutional. The courts are NOT the place that these decisions should be decided and then forced on the people.

quote:

---

4. Changing the definition and make-up of Marriage is absolutely attacking marriage as an institution, as the nature of marriage would not be the same after. That is the very reasons that emotions and convictions are so strong on this subject. As I have stated, I think the vast majority of Americans support equal rights for gay partners, but the vast majority oppose calling it marriage. Just call it anything but marriage and make the laws equal and then nobody has to argue this anymore.

---

quote:

---

I don't know how many ways we can explain that the very act of creating a separate system for a certain group of people is inherently unequal.

---

Man+Woman Marriage is inherently different and I don't know how many times it must be stated that two gay people CANNOT procreate. Therefore there is a difference in the relationship. They are not the SAME. The two CAN be treated differently under the law because they are different. It doesn't mean that rights should not be given to committed gay couples... but the argument that there is no difference is simply not correct. Marriage does not require procreation, but the institution as a whole promotes it.

The courts are not where civil rights decisions are supposed to be decided? LOL that's news to me.

What is the civil right being denied here? The union of a man+woman is NOT the same as a man+man. It is not the same. Period. It is different. Again I support extending rights, but stop trying to make these the same when they are not.

The several states have always placed limitations and requirements on marriage, and various states have different standards. What makes this issue any different from say incest? At what point does a society have no control over what is in their own best interest? What makes a court the best place to decide?

Prop 8 was placed on the ballot because the SSM crowd thought they could get it passed...when they failed they immediately ran to the courts to implement their agenda. The courts are not the place for this IMO.

quote:

---

quote:

---

2. I agree...anyone who enters into a relationship similar to me and my wife (where intercourse may lead to the creation of human life where the offspring would be genetically linked to both of us) should be treated equally and called marriage. Any relationship that differs from that relationship should NOT be referred to by marriage.

---

quote:

---

So post-menopausal women are ineligible from marriage under your scheme?

---

I am not going to dignify this with a response.

---

why does this not deserve a response? You keep using procreation as a standard of who deserves to be in a union called marriage. Is a different standard applied here?

What about hermaphrodites? What about transsexuals who have legally had their gender changed? What about a married couple who just doesn't have sex?

The point is that you can hold up the ability to procreate as a reason that marriage is this sacred cow, but the government already recognizes lots of marriages where procreation is not possible. You are being inconsistent if you want those to be called a marriage.

quote:

---

quote:

---

1. Actually, the voters in California voted to amend the state constitution to prohibit SSM, and the courts stepped in to overturn the valid state constitutional amendment process. Time and time again the courts insert themselves where they do not have "jurisdiction" and the people are left without recourse.

---

quote:

---

The people cannot enact a state constitutional amendment that violates the US constitution. This is basic high school government. If you disagree with the Court's reasoning for striking down this provision, fine, but the courts definitely do have jurisdiction over determining whether a state law, even a state constitutional amendment, is constitutional under the US constitution.

See my example above about a hypothetical state constitutional amendment that would clearly be unconstitutional. The federal courts could and should strike down such provisions, even if every single voter in a state supports it.

---

The state court upheld the measure as Constitutional, which was then overturned by a federal judge. I guess we will find out this summer what the SC will say...but can you articulate the specific federal constitutional foundation for gay marriage?

quote:

---

2. I agree...anyone who enters into a relationship similar to me and my wife (where intercourse may lead to the creation of human life where the offspring would be genetically linked to both of us) should be treated equally and called marriage. Any relationship that differs from that relationship should NOT be referred to by marriage.

---

quote:

---

So post-menopausal women are ineligible from marriage under your scheme?

---

I am not going to dignify this with a response.

quote:

---

3. We live in a Constitutional Republic. This does not constitute mob-rule. The courts dictating their will and legislating from the bench amounts to tyrannical government that is not of, for, and by the people. The courts are acting outside of their constitutional authority.

---

quote:

---

Checks and balances. If courts didn't decide what is and is not constitutional you would be left with mob rule. Again, feel free to disagree with the opinions and their reasoning, but they're not acting outside their authority. I've always found it odd how the same people who accuse judges of "legislating from the bench" when they strike down a gay marriage ban were furious when the Supreme Court refused to strike down Obamacare.

---

Courts have a legitimate role UNDER the constitution, but once the court steps outside of their proper constitutional role they become legislative in nature. The framers of our government went to great lengths to limit the power and reach of ALL three branches of our government. The legislative was given the broadest authority and the only branch that could make law and the power of the purse. The courts have been guilty of overreaching their role time and time again, and often go way beyond their Constitutional scope without recourse. This was the case with Obamacare where the courts REWROTE the legislation in order to make it constitutional. The courts are NOT the place that these decisions should be decided and then forced on the people.

quote:

---

4. Changing the definition and make-up of Marriage is absolutely attacking marriage as an institution, as the nature of marriage would not be the same after. That is the very reasons that emotions and convictions are so strong on this subject. As I have stated, I think the vast majority of Americans support equal rights for gay partners, but the vast majority oppose calling it marriage. Just call it anything but marriage and make the laws equal and then nobody has to argue this anymore.

---

quote:

---

I don't know how many ways we can explain that the very act of creating a separate system for a certain group of people is inherently unequal.

---

Man+Woman Marriage is inherently different and I don't know how many times it must be stated that two gay people CANNOT procreate. Therefore there is a difference in the relationship. They are not the SAME. The two CAN be treated differently under the law because they are different. It doesn't mean that rights should not be given to committed gay couples... but the argument that there is no difference is simply not correct. Marriage does not require procreation, but the institution as a whole promotes it.

---

Marriage isn't a procreation contract. Marriage isn't a child treating contract. You cannot use procreation as the reason for marriage then say that only excludes gays. It's absurd no matter how many times you repeat it

Good answer for that in this link

More this weekend.

That's awful logic. It doesn't explain why a childless marriage should be privileged for heterosexuals, it just tries to draw an arbitrary distinction between "accidental" and "intentional" while violating the basic definition of those words. There's nothing accidental about 2 heterosexuals who choose to not have children nor in an elderly couple marrying with the knowledge that childbearing is impossible.

SapperAg.

Words matter.

Acts which do not possess procreative powers (such as homosexual ones) are not "infertile", because they could not possibly be fertile. Therefore, it makes no sense to say that a rock is infertile but, accurately, impotent.

quote:

---

Regardless of its fertility or infertility on any specific occasion, the coital act is procreative by its nature - as only it can produce life - even when and if procreation does not result, as it does not in the vast majority of cases during a couple's fertile lifetime. Is the nature of marital relations fundamentally different during the frequent instances when pregnancy does not occur? Are those acts, then, equivalent in kind to sodomy? At a certain point, all heterosexual couples become permanently infertile due to age, but does this make the character of their acts sodomitical? It does not. They are no less marital or generative in their nature because they always remain, in their "one-flesh" aspect, unitive - something a homosexual act can never be. Unitive coition is obviously the necessary precondition for procreation, which is why these acts remain generative in their essence. However, sodomy, by its nature and in all circumstances, is a non-procreative act. One might even say that it is an anti-procreative act. Sodomy and coition have never been treated the same before because they are not the same.

---

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=2522

quote:

---

That's awful logic. It doesn't explain why a childless marriage should be privileged for heterosexuals, it just tries to draw an arbitrary distinction between "accidental" and "intentional" while violating the basic definition of those words. There's nothing accidental about 2 heterosexuals who choose to not have children nor in an elderly couple marrying with the knowledge that childbearing is impossible.

---

Further it tries to define the state interest in marriage as procreation which is silly. Marriage ties people together legally and financially which helps establish stable relationships with legal clarity. Two people are inherently more stable than one thanks to specialization and a larger skill set to draw from. Dual income is particularly beneficial.

His excuse that it would be over complicate the law to exclude old heterosexuals is nonsense. The law could be simply be that only those with kids can get married and if it's about procreation then kids should be required before marriage benefits are allowed to prevent lying to game the system. Easy peasy.

It's just an honestly terrible argument.

quote:

---

The state court upheld the measure as Constitutional, which was then overturned by a federal judge. I guess we will find out this summer what the SC will say...but can you articulate the specific federal constitutional foundation for gay marriage?

---

Federal Courts can and do determine constitutionality of state statutes and constitutional provisions all the time. You didn't like this particular court's opinion. That's fine, but this is no different than if the Court had struck down some mundane law about grain tariffs.

Why do you continue to ignore my example of an obviously unconstitutional state law with broad-sweeping public support? Would you oppose a federal court striking down the law I proposed?

As for the specific federal constitutional foundation, it's based mostly on the equal protection clause. There are now about 30 cases out there that you can read that lay it out in explicit detail. They all say pretty much the same thing. If you have to pick just one, like someone else suggested, I'd look up Justice Posner's opinion from the 7th Circuit.

You're free to disagree with those opinions and the reasoning contained therein (that's why they're called "opinions" after all), but the act of writing one that strikes down a state statute is in no way overstepping any bounds.

quote:

---

I am not going to dignify this with a response.

---

Why? This was YOUR criteria for marriage eligibility, not mine:

quote:

---

Anyone who enters into a relationship similar to me and my wife (where intercourse may lead to the creation of human life where the offspring would be genetically linked to both of us) should be treated equally and called marriage. Any relationship that differs from that relationship should NOT be referred to by marriage.

---

By YOUR definition, post-menopausal women, and infertile individuals of any age cannot meet your requirement. If you're going to make procreative ability a barrier to entry, you have to be able to explain why some people get an exception to that rule but not others.

quote:

---

Courts have a legitimate role UNDER the constitution, but once the court steps outside of their proper constitutional role they become legislative in nature. The framers of our government went to great lengths to limit the power and reach of ALL three branches of our government. The legislative was given the broadest authority and the only branch that could make law and the power of the purse. The courts have been guilty of overreaching their role time and time again, and often go way beyond their Constitutional scope without recourse. This was the case with Obamacare where the courts REWROTE the legislation in order to make it constitutional. The courts are NOT the place that these decisions should be decided and then forced on the people.

---

How is the act of declaring a statute unconstitutional "stepping outside of its proper role?" That IS their role. I'll ask again: if California passed a state law outlawing the practice of Christianity, would you be opposed to a federal Court declaring that unconstitutional?

quote:

---

Man+Woman Marriage is inherently different and I don't know how many times it must be stated that two gay people CANNOT procreate.

---

And my grandmother CANNOT procreate either. Why does she get an exception to this rule of yours?

quote:

---

Therefore there is a difference in the relationship. They are not the SAME. The two CAN be treated differently under the law because they are different. It doesn't mean that rights should not be given to committed gay couples... but the argument that there is no difference is simply not correct. Marriage does not require procreation, but the institution as a whole promotes it.

---

This paragraph makes no sense. Your whole point when entering this discussion was to stress that we should be happy with civil unions that are "exactly the same as marriage and have exactly the same legal rights." Now you say "the two CAN be treated differently under the law." Which is it? Is my relationship to be treated the same, or different?

Even ignoring this contradiction, your basic premise is "hey, the bus is getting us all to our destination - you should just be happy we're letting you on it, and sit in the back where you belong." Thanks, but no thanks.

quote:

---

Further it tries to define the state interest in marriage as procreation which is silly.

---

That is actually the very reason why the state has an interest in marriage.

quote:

---

Its just a silly argument.

---

That is just table pounding. You have not demonstrated why it is a 'silly argument.'

Another way to describe the difference....

Take a pear tree and a rock. The pear tree produces fruit. Maybe one year, because of the whether, it produces no fruit. But its still a pear tree and by its nature, capable of producing fruit. Perhaps eventually, in its last year, it produces less and less fruit until it eventually dies.

Compare it to a rock which sat next to the pear tree. The rock never produced fruit but for a fundamental different reason. The rock, by its very nature, cannot produce fruit. No matter how hard it tried, it cannot produce fruit.

When comparing the pear tree and the rock, no sane person would say, "Well, that year with the bad weather when the tree produced no fruit, in that year the pear tree and the rock did not produce fruit for the same reason. "

No, the pear tree was infertile and the rock was impotent.

Again, the fact this has to be explained like this is close to insanity. As if we all have to prove that male + female is not the same thing as male + male / female + female. It is not the same thing and it will never be the same thing. Sometimes, the result of a sexual union might produce the same outcome - no kids - but its not the same thing. I have five kids and, while I am not bragging, my wife and I have certainly laid together in the biblical sense more than five times in our marriage. But in each of those times, we would not say, "Oh, in those instances, its just the same thing as two men or two women."

This touches on the natural law argument which many of you reject because it does not fit your chosen narrative but it has not been overcome yet.

Maybe time for more tomorrow.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Further it tries to define the state interest in marriage as procreation which is silly.

---

That is actually the very reason why the state has an interest in marriage.

---

No it is not. The state has an interest in marriage for inheritance, visitation rights, property rights. Things like that. If the state's interest was in procreation, none of the million other scenarios we've given you should be marriages. Impotent/ infertile makes 0 difference outside of semantics. No possibility of procreation = No possibility of procreation.

Sorry Cool Laser Falcon.

Perhaps its most accurate to say that there are many reasons why the state has an interest in marriage and stable environments to care for and produce children is one of them.

http://www.marriagelawfoundation.org/publications/Ave%20Maria%201.pdf

^ A 30 page discussion on why the state has traditionally held an interest in marriage with citations from multiple courts/judges/rulings that highlight that the states interest is largely invested in children - procreation and nuturing etc.

quote:

---

What is the civil right being denied here? The union of a man+woman is NOT the same as a man+man. It is not the same. Period. It is different. Again I support extending rights, but stop trying to make these the same when they are not.

The several states have always placed limitations and requirements on marriage, and various states have different standards. What makes this issue any different from say incest? At what point does a society have no control over what is in their own best interest? What makes a court the best place to decide?

Prop 8 was placed on the ballot because the SSM crowd thought they could get it passed...when they failed they immediately ran to the courts to implement their agenda. The courts are not the place for this IMO.

---

Well the federal judiciary thinks it's the "proper place" but I guess they didn't check with you to get your opinion before they started hearing gay marriage cases. In your brain these are all lefty judges but Posner shows that conservative judges find the anti-SSM arguments are flimsy as well.

At what point does a society lose control over what is in their best interest? When their best interest is passing laws that violate the U.S. Constitution would be one instance.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Further it tries to define the state interest in marriage as procreation which is silly.

---

That is actually the very reason why the state has an interest in marriage.

quote:

---

Its just a silly argument.

---

That is just table pounding. You have not demonstrated why it is a 'silly argument.'

Another way to describe the difference....

Take a pear tree and a rock. The pear tree produces fruit. Maybe one year, because of the whether, it produces no fruit. But its still a pear tree and by its nature, capable of producing fruit. Perhaps eventually, in its last year, it produces less and less fruit until it eventually dies.

Compare it to a rock which sat next to the pear tree. The rock never produced fruit but for a fundamental different reason. The rock, by its very nature, cannot produce fruit. No matter how hard it tried, it cannot produce fruit.

When comparing the pear tree and the rock, no sane person would say, "Well, that year with the bad weather when the tree produced no fruit, in that year the pear tree and the rock did not produce fruit for the same reason. "

No, the pear tree was infertile and the rock was impotent.

Again, the fact this has to be explained like this is close to insanity. As if we all have to prove that male + female is not the same thing as male + male / female + female. It is not the same thing and it will never be the same thing. Sometimes, the result of a sexual union might produce the same outcome - no kids - but its not the same thing. I have five kids and, while I am not bragging, my wife and I have certainly laid together in the biblical sense more than five times in our marriage. But in each of those times, we would not say, "Oh, in those instances, its just the same thing as two men or two women."

This touches on the natural law argument which many of you reject because it does not fit your chosen narrative but it has not been overcome yet.

Maybe time for more tomorrow.

---

I like how you ignored half of my post then write a long response that the left out part of my post answered.

This is why I talk small to you. Your either a truly terrible debater or a purposefully deceiving debater.

Could you repost the argument? Searching all the pages thus far does not yield the source of this quote:

quote:

---

Its just a silly argument.

---

Perhaps staff deleted it.

For some reason, this thread made AgBeliever cross my mind. Where did he go? I haven't seen him post here for a while. I've seen him over on the Football board, but wondering why he stopped coming here.

He seems to spend most of his time in Politics and A&M Football.

Thanks. I was actually just over at the Football forum and noticed he posted about some shoving match he got into at american sniper because of a cell phone.

quote:

---

Could you repost the argument? Searching all the pages thus far does not yield the source of this quote:

quote:

---

Its just a silly argument.

---

Perhaps staff deleted it.

---

6:43am

quote:

---

6:43am

---

Danke.

quote:

---

quote:

---

That's awful logic. It doesn't explain why a childless marriage should be privileged for heterosexuals, it just tries to draw an arbitrary distinction between "accidental" and "intentional" while violating the basic definition of those words. There's nothing accidental about 2 heterosexuals who choose to not have children nor in an elderly couple marrying with the knowledge that childbearing is impossible.

---

Further it tries to define the state interest in marriage as procreation which is silly. Marriage ties people together legally and financially which helps establish stable relationships with legal clarity. Two people are inherently more stable than one thanks to specialization and a larger skill set to draw from. Dual income is particularly beneficial.

His excuse that it would be over complicate the law to exclude old heterosexuals is nonsense. The law could be simply be that only those with kids can get married and if it's about procreation then kids should be required before marriage benefits are allowed to prevent lying to game the system. Easy peasy.

It's just an honestly terrible argument.

---

I think you and Sapper have missed the mark with respect to Seamaster's articles. They aren't making a distinction between "accidental" and "intentional" as is used in the common vernacular. Both articles speak of essential and accidental properties (in particular, fertility or rather infertility). These are terms common to Aristotelian and Thomistic philosophy. An essential property of something is a property that it must have while an accidental property of that same something is one that it happens to have but that it could lack.

An example:

In this picture, we see dogs. Taking each canine individually, it is rather easy to recognize each one on its own as "dog." These sort of properties that make us think "dog" are essential to the beast's dogginess. In comparing each dog with the others, we see differences in size, fur, snout, ears, etc... these are accidental properties of the dog. Smallness is not essential to being a dog. Neither is a brown coat. The same goes for a wrinkled face.

The distinction put forth by the articles between heterosexual relations and homosexual relations is along the same lines. As such, I would disagree with such an argument being silly, stupid, or whatnot.

EDIT: I would add that this is a common misunderstanding because our society does not normally think along the lines of such distinctions. It's quite academic, IMHO.

Neither do existentialists. Whatever that's worth.

quote:

---

quote:

---

6:43am

---

Danke.

quote:

---

quote:

---

That's awful logic. It doesn't explain why a childless marriage should be privileged for heterosexuals, it just tries to draw an arbitrary distinction between "accidental" and "intentional" while violating the basic definition of those words. There's nothing accidental about 2 heterosexuals who choose to not have children nor in an elderly couple marrying with the knowledge that childbearing is impossible.

---

Further it tries to define the state interest in marriage as procreation which is silly. Marriage ties people together legally and financially which helps establish stable relationships with legal clarity. Two people are inherently more stable than one thanks to specialization and a larger skill set to draw from. Dual income is particularly beneficial.

His excuse that it would be over complicate the law to exclude old heterosexuals is nonsense. The law could be simply be that only those with kids can get married and if it's about procreation then kids should be required before marriage benefits are allowed to prevent lying to game the system. Easy peasy.

It's just an honestly terrible argument.

---

I think you and Sapper have missed the mark with respect to Seamaster's articles. They aren't making a distinction between "accidental" and "intentional" as is used in the common vernacular. Both articles speak of essential and accidental properties (in particular, fertility or rather infertility). These are terms common to Aristotelian and Thomistic philosophy. An essential property of something is a property that it must have while an accidental property of that same something is one that it happens to have but that it could lack.

An example:

In this picture, we see dogs. Taking each canine individually, it is rather easy to recognize each one on its own as "dog." These sort of properties that make us think "dog" are essential to the beast's dogginess. In comparing each dog with the others, we see differences in size, fur, snout, ears, etc... these are accidental properties of the dog. Smallness is not essential to being a dog. Neither is a brown coat. The same goes for a wrinkled face.

The distinction put forth by the articles between heterosexual relations and homosexual relations is along the same lines. As such, I would disagree with such an argument being silly, stupid, or whatnot.

EDIT: I would add that this is a common misunderstanding because our society does not normally think along the lines of such distinctions. It's quite academic, IMHO.

---

I agree the article tries to make that point but in the end he says the reason we don't legally separate straight marriages for there infertile is because it would just be too hard and complex. That is nonsense. it's incredibly easy. You can't get married unless you and your partner have a child. Easy peasy.

7 pages.

quote:

---

I agree the article tries to make that point but in the end he says the reason we don't legally separate straight marriages for there infertile is because it would just be too hard and complex. That is nonsense. it's incredibly easy. You can't get married unless you and your partner have a child. Easy peasy.

---

The first article did discuss that, and I agree it was a clumsy handling of the issue. That started when he conceded the term "infertile" to homosexual relations. I felt the distinction was more aptly handled in this second article he posted, and introduced the concept of impotence. (More Aristotelian language usage ahead...) An act that is essentially lacking in potentiality to procreate (which was said to be impotent) versus an act that essentially has the potentiality to generate new life.

quote:

---

7 pages.

---

When these threads get so long it's just a reminder that people's minds are made up and you aren't changing them. And what I say now is that the battle is over, SSM will be legal nationwide soon. So whether you like it or not, you just have to accept it.

quote:

---

quote:

---

I agree the article tries to make that point but in the end he says the reason we don't legally separate straight marriages for there infertile is because it would just be too hard and complex. That is nonsense. it's incredibly easy. You can't get married unless you and your partner have a child. Easy peasy.

---

The first article did discuss that, and I agree it was a clumsy handling of the issue. That started when he conceded the term "infertile" to homosexual relations. I felt the distinction was more aptly handled in this second article he posted, and introduced the concept of impotence. (More Aristotelian language usage ahead...) An act that is essentially lacking in potentiality to procreate (which was said to be impotent) versus an act that essentially has the potentiality to generate new life.

---

even then his reasoning then leaves no reason to discriminate against incest or polygamy. Ultimately there just isn't a secular rationale for only one man one woman marriage.

I'd reiterate however that the biggest reason for govt recognized marriage and what marriage actually does is to tie individuals together financially and legally which is stabilizing and positive for society regardless of procreation. If government stopped recognizing marriage today people aren't suddenly going to stop procreating anymore than they already are.

Notice how many now want government to get out of marriage altogether and you never hear "omg but nobody will have kids!"

It's just a poor argument

quote:

---

quote:

---

7 pages.

---

When these threads get so long it's just a reminder that people's minds are made up and you aren't changing them. And what I say now is that the battle is over, SSM will be legal nationwide soon. So whether you like it or not, you just have to accept it.

---

Agreed.

And..

It should be supported. Once again, religion is impeding progress. I don't really see a negative in having more options for adoption. An overwhelming majority of same-sex parents raise well-rounded adults. Why not have the ability to enjoy the benefits of being married while doing it. What's wrong with paying a surrogate to create what will most likely be 2 great contributions to society? A fantastic individual and a great source of income... Oh.. That's right..God.

Why does a good portion of society continue to allow an ancient mostly unsubstantiated book rule their minds? Fear. Good ol' fashion indoctrinated fear.

quote:

---

even then his reasoning then leaves no reason to discriminate against incest or polygamy. Ultimately there just isn't a secular rationale for only one man one woman marriage.

---

there simply hasn't been one example of a secular rational for prohibiting gay marriage presented in this thread. If you can't think of one in 7 pages, you've got nothing.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

7 pages.

---

When these threads get so long it's just a reminder that people's minds are made up and you aren't changing them. And what I say now is that the battle is over, SSM will be legal nationwide soon. So whether you like it or not, you just have to accept it.

---

Agreed.

And..

It should be supported. Once again, religion is impeding progress. I don't really see a negative in having more options for adoption. An overwhelming majority of same-sex parents raise well-rounded adults. Why not have the ability to enjoy the benefits of being married while doing it. What's wrong with paying a surrogate to create what will most likely be 2 great contributions to society? A fantastic individual and a great source of income... Oh.. That's right..God.

Why does a good portion of society continue to allow an ancient mostly unsubstantiated book rule their minds? Fear. Good ol' fashion indoctrinated fear.

---

I felt my condescension-sense tingling. Now I've pin-pointed it.

quote:

---

even then his reasoning then leaves no reason to discriminate against incest or polygamy. Ultimately there just isn't a secular rationale for only one man one woman marriage.

I'd reiterate however that the biggest reason for govt recognized marriage and what marriage actually does is to tie individuals together financially and legally which is stabilizing and positive for society regardless of procreation. If government stopped recognizing marriage today people aren't suddenly going to stop procreating anymore than they already are.

Notice how many now want government to get out of marriage altogether and you never hear "omg but nobody will have kids!"

It's just a poor argument

---

True, the distinction put forth between infertility and impotence does not address incest or polygamy, nor was it intended to do so. It addressed the current debate in the public arena that is between man+woman marriage and same-sex marriage. To address incest or polygamy other arguments are necessary because they are of a different character than same sex relations. At best, I believe those topics to be a non sequitur at this time.

And I disagree with your assertion about no secular rationale existing. I believe I have offered arguments of a secular character. They are grounded in philosophy and the natural order of our world (specifically human reproduction). That it overlaps with my faith tradition (or any divine positive law) does not automatically "baptize" the argument into a religious one. That you and others here do not find it compelling is something altogether different than it not existing in the first place.

Finances etc... may be the biggest reasons for the state's interest in marriage, but it does not preclude other reasons. I think Seamaster offered up 30 pages of jurisprudence that speak to procreation as it relates to marriage and the state's interest. Even some same sex marriage advocates concede that the mother/father dynamic within marriage is ideal in the raising of children as it relates to productive, upright citizens.

I agree with you that "kids are required for marriage" (and vice versa) is a poor argument. Indeed, it is a misstatement of my argument as well as that of Seamaster's two articles. This misstatement is dealing with the actualization of a potentiality (Aristotelian philosophical meaning here) whereas my argument only deals with the potentiality itself (and lack thereof).