3 ms·

Marriage is not a right and it is not a default state. (Legal) marriage can only exist when a government explicitly defines the relationship and then issues pri

Marriage is not a right and it is not a default state. (Legal) marriage can only exist when a government explicitly defines the relationship and then issues privileges based on that definition. Marriage is a positive action. There is nothing to take away; gay rights activists are not just asking to be left alone, they're asking that we explicitly expand our definition to include their relationships. As above, it is not a forgone conclusion that the incentives for encouraging the citizenry to engage in permanent heterosexual relationships are applicable to homosexual relationships. It is a matter that must be considered separately. Suppose I offer friend X twenty dollars. Now suppose friend Y also demands twenty dollars, and accuses me of violating my offer when I refuse it. That is what is happening here -- heterosexual and homosexual relationships are DIFFERENT and deserve independent consideration. Most communities have decided they want to offer an incentive for permanent heterosexual coupling; the same reasoning can NOT necessarily automatically be extrapolated and applied to homosexual coupling, just as I may offer friend X some money because he is poor or I owe him one or something like that, but that reasoning doesn't always automatically include friend Y. No right is being denied here. Furthermore, no punishment is made due to "brain chemistry"; we are not testing individuals and discarding them based on the presence of certain biological markers (either externally or internally visible) that exist through no personal or direct fault. We are simply choosing that we do not want to incentivize, endorse, or equalize permanent homosexual coupling as we do with permanent heterosexual coupling. Such coupling is an independent affirmative action that does not involve one's brain chemistry.

jlarocco 14y ago
I don't see why government should define marriage at all. If anything, it seems we could do with a little discouraging of heterosexual relationships. If your religion wants to define marriage, cool. If a gay person's religion defines marriage, then that's cool, too. But if you want special privileges from the government (like tax breaks) for your religious status, then you need to accept everybody's definition of marriage.
- cookiecaper 14y ago
  >I don't see why government should define marriage at all. If anything, it seems we could do with a little discouraging of heterosexual relationships. Sure, this position can exist. It simply doesn't reflect the status quo or have much to do with whether the state should expand marital privileges to cover homosexuals. This is basically an entirely different and opposite campaign: "Stop encouraging permanent coupling all together" instead of "please give more people special encouragement to couple permanently". Also, this argument is what is sometimes meant by "gay marriage will destroy marriage" -- you're extrapolating that based on the contentious attitudes around the gay marriage debate, marriage should stop being a legal thing. This is pretty much as close as you can get to "destroying marriage" in an objective or technical sense. >But if you want special privileges from the government (like tax breaks) for your religious status, then you need to accept everybody's definition of marriage. wut. If religions only qualified as religious institutions if they accepted everything the government said, the only religion that would exist would be "nationalism". Further, from the referenda that keep saying "no" to gay marriage, I think "everybody's definition of marriage" may be better aligned with the predominant religious view anyway...
  - jlarocco 14y ago
    >Sure, this position can exist. It simply doesn't reflect the status quo or have much to do with whether the state should expand marital privileges to cover homosexuals. This is basically an entirely different and opposite campaign: "Stop encouraging permanent coupling all together" instead of "please give more people special encouragement to couple permanently". Also, this argument is what is sometimes meant by "gay marriage will destroy marriage" -- you're extrapolating that based on the contentious attitudes around the gay marriage debate, marriage should stop being a legal thing. This is pretty much as close as you can get to "destroying marriage" in an objective or technical sense. You know what, I'm not sure I see the downside there? The concept that certain people should get special privileges from the government is a concept that should be destroyed, IMO. > wut. If religions only qualified as religious institutions if they accepted everything the government said, the only religion that would exist would be "nationalism". You've got it backwards. Marriage started out as a religious thing, dating back thousands of years. Only recently has the government stepped in and had anything to do with it. So if the government wants to be involved in the religious matter of marriage, they need to be more accepting of other religions that may define marriage differently.
YmMot 14y ago
> Suppose I offer friend X twenty dollars. Now suppose friend Y also demands twenty dollars, and accuses me of violating my offer when I refuse it That's a false analogy. The government has a different responsibility to it's citizens than you would have to two of your friends. You are free to treat your friend differently based on any arbitrary criteria you choose...it's a relationship that is an extremely poor model for understanding how government works. The fact that you would bring something like that up, does not bode well for your argument that your ability to reason is intact. The Government has a responsibility to treat all of it's citizens exactly the same. If it treats one group differently it has to have some pretty solid reasons. In the United States, the "default action" is that you are free to pursue your life as you wish unless the state has a compelling reason to stop you...furthermore if the Government extends some privilege to some ALL must have the opportunity to pursue it, if only in theory. > There is nothing to take away; gay rights activists are not just asking to be left alone This is extremely specious reasoning. By that rationale many atrocities of history are justified...the slaves wanted us to expand our definition of "human" and "free man". > Furthermore, no punishment is made due to "brain chemistry"; we are not testing individuals and discarding them based on the presence of certain biological markers (either externally or internally visible) This is based on an extremely dubious and narrow definition of "punishment". > We are simply choosing that we do not want to incentivize, endorse, or equalize permanent homosexual coupling as we do with permanent heterosexual coupling. Yes precisely. Except the government can't just randomly decide to "incentivize" one life style over another for no particular reason. We "incentiveize" a murder-free life style because it's necessary to have a functioning society. There's absolutely no evidence that homosexuality is harmful to individuals or society at large. There's no reason to actively discriminate against it, which is what is going on. At some point in time, some group of people sat down and decided marriage was between a man and a woman...that was an act of actively discriminating against another group of people. It's natural that it takes an action to rectify it....just as slavery couldn't be stopped by all the white people suddenly deciding to be nice to black people. The sorry state of marriage rights in this country exists only by virtue of how indifferent and ignorant the general population is. The good news is that just as we look back in horror at the times we burned people at the stake, the people of the future will look back at the time we finally started to respect people's personal lifestyle choices. Unfortunately, they will probably be seeking comfort from some new horror.
urbanjunkie 14y ago
> gay rights activists are not just asking to be left alone, they're asking that we explicitly expand our definition to include their relationships. How dare those gays demand to be treated like everyone else? How very dare they? If anyone needs me, I'll be catching up with the latest in modern thinking over at the Westboro Baptist Church site.
- cookiecaper 14y ago
  >How dare those gays demand to be treated like everyone else? How very dare they? Everyone else is treated this way. I cannot take another man and try to marry him. In the government's eyes, same-sex partners simply do not qualify for the benefits provided by marriage. It is the same as attempting to apply for welfare while making $250k/yr, or whatever; it's nothing personal or discriminatory to an unchangeable attribute of my biological makeup, the government just has not decided it is in its interest to give money out to people who make $250k/yr. Likewise, the government has not decided it is in its interest to grant privileges to permanent homosexual couples. As I have stated elsewhere, this is fundamentally different from denying any privilege simply due to an external, unchangeable physical attribute like ethnicity; if no black people could get any welfare, that would be bad, but because it takes positive action, intent, and forethought to make $250k/yr (even if it is just in claiming the cash offered via inheritance, etc.) or to bring another person of the same sex and request a marriage license, these are valid points of "discrimination". All citizens are being treated equally; no one is allowed to qualify for a marriage license with a same sex partner, regardless of any other consideration, just as no one is allowed to qualify for welfare with a $250k/yr salary. Any argument in favor of gay marriage must establish why it is in the the state's interest to grant privileges to permanent homosexual couples, just as any claimaint who wants to gather welfare despite his $250k/yr salary must establish why it is in the state and/or community's interest to give him that welfare.
  - urbanjunkie 14y ago
    You can pretend that homosexuality is a conscious choice akin to earning more money than someone else, it just increases the pity I feel for you. Luckily, you're on the losing side of the trend, as more and more states and countries in the world pass laws that promote equality. I shall now let you have the last word. Have a lovely life, and try to find a way to eradicate that hate you have in your heart - it's the Christian thing to do.

jlarocco 14y ago

I don't see why government should define marriage at all. If anything, it seems we could do with a little discouraging of heterosexual relationships. If your religion wants to define marriage, cool. If a gay person's religion defines marriage, then that's cool, too. But if you want special privileges from the government (like tax breaks) for your religious status, then you need to accept everybody's definition of marriage.

cookiecaper 14y ago
>I don't see why government should define marriage at all. If anything, it seems we could do with a little discouraging of heterosexual relationships. Sure, this position can exist. It simply doesn't reflect the status quo or have much to do with whether the state should expand marital privileges to cover homosexuals. This is basically an entirely different and opposite campaign: "Stop encouraging permanent coupling all together" instead of "please give more people special encouragement to couple permanently". Also, this argument is what is sometimes meant by "gay marriage will destroy marriage" -- you're extrapolating that based on the contentious attitudes around the gay marriage debate, marriage should stop being a legal thing. This is pretty much as close as you can get to "destroying marriage" in an objective or technical sense. >But if you want special privileges from the government (like tax breaks) for your religious status, then you need to accept everybody's definition of marriage. wut. If religions only qualified as religious institutions if they accepted everything the government said, the only religion that would exist would be "nationalism". Further, from the referenda that keep saying "no" to gay marriage, I think "everybody's definition of marriage" may be better aligned with the predominant religious view anyway...
- jlarocco 14y ago
  >Sure, this position can exist. It simply doesn't reflect the status quo or have much to do with whether the state should expand marital privileges to cover homosexuals. This is basically an entirely different and opposite campaign: "Stop encouraging permanent coupling all together" instead of "please give more people special encouragement to couple permanently". Also, this argument is what is sometimes meant by "gay marriage will destroy marriage" -- you're extrapolating that based on the contentious attitudes around the gay marriage debate, marriage should stop being a legal thing. This is pretty much as close as you can get to "destroying marriage" in an objective or technical sense. You know what, I'm not sure I see the downside there? The concept that certain people should get special privileges from the government is a concept that should be destroyed, IMO. > wut. If religions only qualified as religious institutions if they accepted everything the government said, the only religion that would exist would be "nationalism". You've got it backwards. Marriage started out as a religious thing, dating back thousands of years. Only recently has the government stepped in and had anything to do with it. So if the government wants to be involved in the religious matter of marriage, they need to be more accepting of other religions that may define marriage differently.

YmMot 14y ago

> Suppose I offer friend X twenty dollars. Now suppose friend Y also demands twenty dollars, and accuses me of violating my offer when I refuse it That's a false analogy. The government has a different responsibility to it's citizens than you would have to two of your friends. You are free to treat your friend differently based on any arbitrary criteria you choose...it's a relationship that is an extremely poor model for understanding how government works. The fact that you would bring something like that up, does not bode well for your argument that your ability to reason is intact. The Government has a responsibility to treat all of it's citizens exactly the same. If it treats one group differently it has to have some pretty solid reasons. In the United States, the "default action" is that you are free to pursue your life as you wish unless the state has a compelling reason to stop you...furthermore if the Government extends some privilege to some ALL must have the opportunity to pursue it, if only in theory. > There is nothing to take away; gay rights activists are not just asking to be left alone This is extremely specious reasoning. By that rationale many atrocities of history are justified...the slaves wanted us to expand our definition of "human" and "free man". > Furthermore, no punishment is made due to "brain chemistry"; we are not testing individuals and discarding them based on the presence of certain biological markers (either externally or internally visible) This is based on an extremely dubious and narrow definition of "punishment". > We are simply choosing that we do not want to incentivize, endorse, or equalize permanent homosexual coupling as we do with permanent heterosexual coupling. Yes precisely. Except the government can't just randomly decide to "incentivize" one life style over another for no particular reason. We "incentiveize" a murder-free life style because it's necessary to have a functioning society. There's absolutely no evidence that homosexuality is harmful to individuals or society at large. There's no reason to actively discriminate against it, which is what is going on. At some point in time, some group of people sat down and decided marriage was between a man and a woman...that was an act of actively discriminating against another group of people. It's natural that it takes an action to rectify it....just as slavery couldn't be stopped by all the white people suddenly deciding to be nice to black people. The sorry state of marriage rights in this country exists only by virtue of how indifferent and ignorant the general population is. The good news is that just as we look back in horror at the times we burned people at the stake, the people of the future will look back at the time we finally started to respect people's personal lifestyle choices. Unfortunately, they will probably be seeking comfort from some new horror.

urbanjunkie 14y ago

> gay rights activists are not just asking to be left alone, they're asking that we explicitly expand our definition to include their relationships. How dare those gays demand to be treated like everyone else? How very dare they? If anyone needs me, I'll be catching up with the latest in modern thinking over at the Westboro Baptist Church site.

cookiecaper 14y ago
>How dare those gays demand to be treated like everyone else? How very dare they? Everyone else is treated this way. I cannot take another man and try to marry him. In the government's eyes, same-sex partners simply do not qualify for the benefits provided by marriage. It is the same as attempting to apply for welfare while making $250k/yr, or whatever; it's nothing personal or discriminatory to an unchangeable attribute of my biological makeup, the government just has not decided it is in its interest to give money out to people who make $250k/yr. Likewise, the government has not decided it is in its interest to grant privileges to permanent homosexual couples. As I have stated elsewhere, this is fundamentally different from denying any privilege simply due to an external, unchangeable physical attribute like ethnicity; if no black people could get any welfare, that would be bad, but because it takes positive action, intent, and forethought to make $250k/yr (even if it is just in claiming the cash offered via inheritance, etc.) or to bring another person of the same sex and request a marriage license, these are valid points of "discrimination". All citizens are being treated equally; no one is allowed to qualify for a marriage license with a same sex partner, regardless of any other consideration, just as no one is allowed to qualify for welfare with a $250k/yr salary. Any argument in favor of gay marriage must establish why it is in the the state's interest to grant privileges to permanent homosexual couples, just as any claimaint who wants to gather welfare despite his $250k/yr salary must establish why it is in the state and/or community's interest to give him that welfare.
- urbanjunkie 14y ago
  You can pretend that homosexuality is a conscious choice akin to earning more money than someone else, it just increases the pity I feel for you. Luckily, you're on the losing side of the trend, as more and more states and countries in the world pass laws that promote equality. I shall now let you have the last word. Have a lovely life, and try to find a way to eradicate that hate you have in your heart - it's the Christian thing to do.