@Raybies;Why should citizens of the United States of America have to
"wait" for the states to decide that as citizens, gays deserve the same
legal protections as heterosexual citizens?Why wait to do what is
right? Do it now.
Raybies – “Let the states work this out. Eventually whatever is the
right path, will likewise fall out of this.”Excellent! Perhaps
because this mirrors my sentiments exactly, but very well said.
i agree that the supreme court should not invent a new right and foist it on the
states. let the states decide. Over time if it is right, then each state and its
people should be given the time to arrive at that conclusion. What's ironic (and little understood) about the Roe V. Wade decision is
that when the courts invented a women's right to choose, that abortion laws
were already popular and gaining in popularity in a majority of states. When the
courts forced the issue, it radicalized the right-to-life movement. One wonders had that ruling been curtailed, if we'd still be debating the
issue all these years later. Let the states work this out.
Eventually whatever is the right path, will likewise fall out of this.
@wrz --"Women give birth, men can't... gender
discrimination."You are confusing biology with law. "Thus, to be fair to both genders, there should be a law prohibiting women
from giving birth."Nope. Even if this **were** legal
discrimination, discrimination issues are never solved by prohibiting anything.
They are solved by **permitting** the oppressed group to **do** something. You
figure out how to allow men to give birth, and I'll be right there with ya.
;-)"Polygamy and incest laws can be changed."See
the multiple posts that have already discussed this for the many many reasons
why gay marriages are not comparable to either polygamy or incest. You
haven't successfully rebutted any of those posts yet."My
dog wags his tail giving consent."Nope. Look up the term
"informed consent". It's a foundational aspect of all contract law.
It can't be removed from the system."what dangers can you
conjure that marriage brings to a child?"You're kidding,
right?"There are many societies who have no such laws."Show me one civilized country that does NOT have principles of informed
consent inherent throughout its contract law, and then **maybe** I'll take
It is no wonder that those against gay marriage must typically hide their
identity. Such open examples of bigotry, lies and ignorance would
otherwise have consequence. Gay marriage serves a purpose. Mongamy
serves a purpose, otherwise those trying to 'defend it' would have
zero grounds. What is at stake here is the continued discrimination
against LGBT Americans. They work. They love. They pay taxes. And yet...
'Gay Americans pay MORE taxes for FEWER rights' - By Suze Orman
– CNN – 02/25/13 'We all have 83-year-old Edith
Windsor to thank for in pushing the issue of same-sex marriage equality on to
the national front. Edie and her partner Thea were together for 40 years. How
many marriages do you know that have lasted that long? But when Thea died in
2009, Edie was hit with a $363,000 federal estate tax bill because as a same-sex
couple they were not eligible for the unlimited marital deduction. Are we really
a nation that says it is fair and just to demand Edie pay a $363,000 penalty
because she is gay?' They continue, to be treated poorly.
@amazondoc:"Some people are already allowed to marry men. Other people
are NOT allowed to marry men. The distinction is based solely on gender."Women give birth, men can't... gender discrimination. Thus, to be
fair to both genders, there should be a law prohibiting women from giving
birth."In contrast, NOBODY is allowed to marry multiple
partners. NOBODY is allowed to commit incest."Polygamy and
incest laws can be changed."Further, in re bestiality and
children: neither children nor animals are capable of giving informed
consent."Both can give consent. My dog wags his tail giving
consent. A three year old nods her head to give consent. What more is needed?
Besides, what dangers can you conjure that marriage brings to a child?"It can not be removed from our legal system."All it takes
is a vote... There are many societies who have no such laws."...children and animals will never be eligible for signing marriage
"Children can sign an 'X.'
Dogs can use an inked paw."Further, in re polygamy: unlike gay
marriage, polygamy has very practical dangers."Only because
polygamists must hide from the law.
@happy --"if there were a strong argument put forth by a well
funded minority, and it ended up in the courts, it may well face the same
problems legislating against it that opposite sex only marriage is currently
having."If a polygamist group went to court, they would be
rejected just as this Canadian polygamist group was. Civil rights do not
supersede the safety of other citizens. Similarly, we don't
allow human sacrifice in this country even though we do guarantee freedom of
religion. There are limits on all freedoms."No such thing as
"number discrimination?" Really? How about all the affirmative action
programs that have been enacted due to number discrimination"That isn't number discrimination, that's racial discrimination.
There is no such thing as discrimination against a number."Furthermore, how can you dismiss the harm as well as the benefits of
certain rights? My 2nd Amendment analogy was a prime example of such."I don't even understand what you mean here. Nobody is dismissing
any harms, as for instance the harms that go along with polygamy in this
country. What have firearms got to do with gay marriages?
Iam not endorsing polygamy, it is just that if there were a strong argument put
forth by a well funded minority, and it ended up in the courts, it may well face
the same problems legislating against it that opposite sex only marriage is
currently having. No such thing as "number
discrimination?" Really? How about all the affirmative action programs that
have been enacted due to number discrimination due to percieved racial
discrimination, as in not enough blacks on the fire department or something.
Furthermore, how can you dismiss the harm as well as the benefits of
certain rights? My 2nd Amendment analogy was a prime example of such.
We live in a state filled with people that are very determined to show the World
who they are! They stand up for their religious values and that is great! They
don't however respect the rights of gay people to do the same! They
don't want to see the other side of the coin! The side that allows gay
people the same religious rights that they so cherish. Gee, can you imagine a
gay person actually having the nerve to believe that God created him that way!
Religious freedom belongs to everyone! Because LDS people mock my relationship,
doesn't make it any less important! I do have a deep belief in God and in
my relationship! Nobody will take that from me. We come from among you and we
have always been a part of you.How sad that you just throw us a way like you
would a piece of garbage. That is what you do when you treated us like we are
evil ans stupid. God would never discriminate in this way and our Savior Jesus
Christ never mentioned anything, did He?
@happy --"Peoples right to love whom they want"Nobody is trying to prevent anyone from loving whomever they want."and adults making free choices""Free choices" are
limited by law and the constitution. "That there could be any
negative issues with 3 or more can also be the case with just about any right we
have."This doesn't even make sense."And up
to recently NOBODY of the same sex could marry."Look at that
earlier post again. Women can marry men. Men can not marry men. That
is gender discrimination.There is no such thing as "number
discrimination" anywhere in our laws or constitution.Furthermore
-- polygamy has very real, recognized dangers in our society. For instance --
when a group of Canadian polygamists recently sued for marriage rights in
Canada, British Columbia's Supreme Court ruled against them. In the
court's decision, the Chief Justice noted that "women in polygamous
relationships faced higher rates of domestic, physical and sexual abuse, died
younger and were more prone to mental illnesses. Children from those marriages,
he said, were more likely to be abused and neglected, less likely to perform
well at school and often suffered from emotional and behavioral problems."
@J Thompson@Mike RichardsSouth Jordan, UtahMarriage has
a purpose.... ============ Very well, Marriage DOES have a purpose.Marriage is a promise and a comittment
between people who love each other.Marriage is about shared lives, dreams,
goals, hopes, aspirations, struggles, hardships, and a deep and profound
friendship.It is about LOVE.It is sad that constantly degrade
it and drag it through the mud by defining it strictly as SEXUAL acts?BTW - People procreate without marriage all the time. It is not a
"requirement".As a Mormon - I live by those teachings, and
would NEVER force to live by themany.If you don't want to
smoke, don't.If you don't want to drink, don't.If you
don't want to gamble, don't.If you don't want an abortion,
don't.If you don't want to have pre-marital sex, don't.If you don't want to have a gay marriage, don't.There is
nothing here taking away your Free Agency or threatening YOUR salvation or your
marriage.Please stop promoting Lucifer's Plan by
"Forcing" others by taking away their Free Agency.
Re: ContrariusIt still doesn't address one of the principle
issues in all of this. Peoples right to love whom they want, and adults making
free choices. That there could be any negative issues with 3 or more can also
be the case with just about any right we have. Look at the 2nd Amendment for
instance. And up to recently NOBODY of the same sex could marry.
ZZZZZ... Doh! Sorry, I dozed off -- over the last year, because I have been
bored into a stupor by the repetition of all the same old, lame, unconvincing,
arguments trying to justify the continued discrimination and IN-equality before
the law that exists in our marriage statutes.Same sex couples, who
are in every way upright US citizens and residents of States, want to be
married. Nobody has yet given a good reason for denying them. NOBODY. And nobody
has said anything new in the past several years.As the testimony
before the Supreme Court continues to show, the arguments for denying equality
are pathetic and lacking. Same sex marriage does NO HARM; Same sex marriage DOES
provide positive value to society by 1) instantiating equality before the law
and correcting historical injustice; 2) providing increased social stability for
millions of Americans who are living in families headed by same sex couples; 3)
reducing the convoluted (separate as well as unequal) legal machinations
required of same sex couples to achieve the same financial, tax, and estate
benefits as their heterosexual counterparts.There are NO rational
arguments to the contrary, and everybody knows it....ZZZZZZ
@happy --"If two people of same sex can marry due to love. Why
not three or more."Read the post by amazondoc. The one made just
before your post. That should answer your question.
Cutting through this mess of philosophy we've been reading, it would be a
good question now to ask. If two people of same sex can marry due to love. Why
not three or more. Wouldn't the same arguments being made in favor of same
sex couples also apply to more than three. The point I'm making is,
I'd like to see how marriage could be defended as only 2 people when it
cannot be defended as only male/female.
@wrz --"if one aberration to traditional marriage (same-sex) is
allowed, there are numerous other combinations of associations that would also
(rightly) demand recognition as marriage... "Once again --Some people are already allowed to marry men. Other people are NOT
allowed to marry men. The distinction is based solely on gender. Gender
discrimination is unconstitutional. Therefore, marriage discrimination is
In contrast, NOBODY is allowed to marry
multiple partners. NOBODY is allowed to commit incest. NOBODY is allowed to
commit bestiality. Therefore, there is no discrimination. These laws ARE
Further, in re bestiality and children:
neither children nor animals are capable of giving informed consent. Consent is
a fundamental component of all contract law. It can not be removed from our
legal system. Therefore, children and animals will never be eligible for signing
Further, in re polygamy: unlike gay
marriage, polygamy has very practical dangers. Women have always had less power
in society than men; therefore, it is easy to take advantage of/subjugate/abuse
women in polygamous relationships -- as we have seen repeatedly in polygamous
sects. Gay marriages have no such proven, concrete dangers.
No one of consequence is arguing against finding ways to grant applicable rights
to gay couples. Nor is anyone of consequence arguing to have gay couples
punished if they choose to commit to each other for life.Marriage
was designed for the purpose of establishing committed parents to care for the
children resulting from the union. Everyone knows this. Exceptions exist. But
exceptions to a rule do not justify adding more exceptions. Some people may live
when they jump of a 4-story building. It doesn't mean we change the rule
and allow everyone to jump off.More importantly, government has no
business taking sides on moral issues. Many Americans believe gay intimacy is
extremely sinful. The only way government can remain neutral on the subject is
to not acknowledge it. If government legalizes and recognizes gay marriage, it
will be taking sides on the moral issue, announcing that the every American
officially endorces, supports, and financially backs intimate gay behavior.
@Eric Samuelsen:"I also think Roe was decided correctly. If
there's a right to privacy (and I think there obviously is one), then the
Court had no choice but to rule as they did."Indeed, there is a
right to privacy in the Constitution. There is also a right to 'life
liberty and the pursuit of happiness...' which millions of unborn are
denied.@jonnyboy:"If everyone got divorced it would be bad
so we should prohibit divorce."Everyone is getting divorced...
It now stands at about 50% nation-wide. And I think it's having an adverse
effect on our society.@The Skeptical Chymist:"We'll
be a much better country when we uniformly allow same-sex marriages throughout
the land as well."Very short-sighted of you. Same sex marriage
is simply the opening of the door for more weird marriage combinations until the
whole ritual will eventually disappear. This might be how this great country
will eventually slip over the cliff.
@Pagan:"Janice Langbehn was kept from the bedside of her dying
partner, Lisa Pond. They were together for 18 years."If that be
the case, it was their own fault. They should-a planned ahead and had a
notarized document prepared covering this contingency.@cavetroll:"Wher in the US Constitution does it say anything about marriage?"Where in the US Constitution does it say anything about abortion...?
Yet we now have a SCOTUS 'Roe vs Wade' decision. @glendenbg:"I believe most people marry because they love the person
they're marrying, they want to make a commitment to each other."That's true... and the polygamist community recently in the news
might just fall into that love/commitment category."The short
answer is that is provides a host of legal benefits and protections, such as
inheritance of property and medical power of attorney, both of which can be
incredibly important."Why would you wanna limit that to just two
people, regardless of sexual orientation?@4601:"If anyone
can marry for love, are polyandry a polygamy soon to follow?"Of
course they are... Unfortunately, SCOTUS may not be smart enough to see this.
@Wrz – “if one aberration to traditional marriage (same-sex) is
allowed, there are numerous other combinations of associations that would also
(rightly) demand recognition as marriage... such as polygamy, group marriages,
adult/children, siblings marrying, and (gasp) humans marrying their
pets…”Reduction to the absurd arguments (fallacies,
actually) like this sound very convincing when you’re a college freshman
(or an AM talk radio host), but given a little time (hopefully by your senior
year) and wisdom and they are rightly recognized as sophistry and nonsense.My first glimpse of this truth was when (at 14) I said I wanted to go to
the mall because “all my friends were going.” My Dad smugly replied
“if all your friends jumped off a cliff, would you do it too?” I was speechless at the time, but even then my teenage brain knew his
response was ridiculous.
@Noodlekaboodle:"Gay people are already allowed to live the lifestyle
they chose. Why not let them legally connect their lives..."It's quite simple... if one aberration to traditional marriage (same-sex)
is allowed, there are numerous other combinations of associations that would
also (rightly) demand recognition as marriage... such as polygamy, group
marriages, adult/children, siblings marrying, and (gasp) humans marrying their
pets (Don't laugh... some wealthy would love to leave money to their pets
after death)."...the only difference between banning and
allowing gay marriage is the legal rights."That's correct.
So, can you not imagine a group of people agreeing to marry each other so they
all can reap the benefits of thousands of federal programs now only available to
the married? "The gay people who act married would be allowed to
get married. How on earth does this affect your life in ANY way shape or
form?"For one, it would likely bankrupt an already bankrupt
national government. It's not beyond the realm of possibilities for the
residents of a whole community or town to marry each other to capitalize on
Cats: "When tnis even has to be debated, sociefy has reached a point of
degradation from which there may be no return! It's tragic."I can only assume that by "this" you are referring to the systematic
exclusion of a class of people from the equal application of the protections of
law and the denial of basic rights by the government. Any other interpretation
would indeed be tragic.
When tnis even has to be debated, sociefy has reached a point of degradation
from which there may be no return! It's tragic.
Normally, I don't choose to be too serious, but a lot has been written
today by a lot of people. Some of it is well-rehearsed. Some of it is meant to
confuse the issue. Some of it is meant to divert from the real issue.A few posters got it right. They reminded us that we do not make moral rules.
They reminded us that government cannot re-define what God has already defined.
We are not all of the same religion, but we are all of the same
family. At our head is our Father, who created us and gave us rules of
happiness. He also warned us to beware of ourselves, of our appetites and of
unchecked passions.There is opposition in all things. We decide
which side we will take. We decide whether we will abide by eternal law or
whether we will rebel against eternal law. Finding excuses to rebel seems to be
in man's nature. Finding a reason to believe in the God who gave us life
seems to be too great a challenge for too many. Giving government
control over God leaves us without God and with a totalitarian government.
J Thompson @1:22: "I can think of no reason to take God out of the
equation..."I'll let the more philosophically trained
tackle your first paragraph, as jonnyboy has done. However, if it is as flawed
as your second you might as well go home. Your appeals to probability to debunk
evolution are way off the mark. As one who actually does know a bit about
Darwinism, I can assure you that the synchronous appearance of male and female
is no statistical fluke, but exactly what Darwinian theory would predict.Refer to the Index to Creationist Claims: CB010 and CB350. You might
want to check out CA001, CA008, and CA009, too.J Thompson @4:55:
"Should we stand idly by when there is great danger to society?"I agree that we should absolutely not fail to act in the face of danger.
I part with you on the interpretation of the danger. I see the unequal
treatment of the LGBT community as a grievous wrong that needs to be corrected
and a danger to society. So I will act to change the inequitable laws. OK with
you?J Thompson @4:55: "Look at history!... placed in
@J ThompsonA person's choice of what god to believe in (or not)
is absolutely his own choice and no one else's. The government should take
no interest, one way or the other, in the individual's relationship to god.
Many disagree with your concept of the creator god and his commandments, and
resent your attempts to force your theology on them. I am one of them.Your sky-is-falling view of what will happen if we permit same-sex marriage is
not very convincing. There were many who predicted the end of civilization as
we know it if mixed-race marriages were permitted. We seem to have survived
that just fine, and we'll survive same-sex marriages being permitted as
well. I would say that our country is a much better country now that we
uniformly allow mixed race marriages throughout the land. We'll be a much
better country when we uniformly allow same-sex marriages throughout the land as
well. I honestly don't know what you are so afraid of. If you're
against same-sex marriage, by all means don't marry a person of the same
J Thompson -- "Look at how quickly people were torn from their homes and
placed in camps because most of the world pretended that "because it
didn't happen to me, it didn't happen to anyone"."That's a very interesting comparison you've made there. Of course,
those people were torn from their homes and placed in camps because the majority
thought of that minority as "less" than everyone else. They were
stigmatized, demonized, and ostracized by the majority, told that they were less
pure than everyone else and even sometimes told that they were evil and
unnatural.Does that sound familiar to you in terms of our current
gay marriage debate?It should.
Jonnyboy,Sorry. Let me try again. Question: Should we require all
to engage in the same profession (any profession will do)? The test would
immediately tell us no – that societal destruction would result.I am looking at it not for the decision of should bicycles be built (which is
not really a moral question) but should society make a rule to require a single
unified profession.Essentially, the test (and again, I note that NO
moral test is perfect – all are just tools) simply helps us recognize if
there are dangers that may be undetected in small amounts but would be
devastating to society in larger amounts.
For those arguing marriage is required by God, I don't believe in your
god. I'm not a member of your religion. I'm not subject to it's
rules.But I am a tax paying citizen of this country and am entitled
to the same rights and privileges as you.
Should we stand idly by when there is great danger to society? Should we shrug
our shoulders and pretend that others can change anything at anytime for any
reason, and that because we believe differently, that we will not have to
worry?Look at history!Look at how quickly people were
torn from their homes and placed in camps because most of the world pretended
that "because it didn't happen to me, it didn't happen to
anyone".I'm not saying that the decision before the Court
equates to the situation in Germany before and during WWII, but I am saying that
changing the definition of marriage will fundamentally change the way that
people think of themselves and of their relationship to God - from this day
forward. When people can pretend that "government
sanctioning" of a lifestyle makes moral something that has been defined by
our Creator as wrong, then our society has lost all touch with its Creator. That
is where the danger lies. We can only dismantle so much before we have
dismantled everything of worth and are left with nothing but rubble.
@Twin Lights, my example did not make a requirement. It did indeed offer a
prohibition. If everyone got divorced it would be bad so we should prohibit
divorce. Also, to say that the universalization principle is about prohibition
and not requirement is contradictory. Prohibition is nothing but a requirement
to not do something. So if a principle is meant to prohibit it inherently is a
A cogent analysis… and the comparison to Roe v Wade is, from a legal and
especially political point of view, accurate.If we let the States
(i.e., democracy) work as intended, this will be a moot issue in a few short
years. If not, it will be a political football (same as abortion) for decades -
polarizing and divisive. For those who think the Court should decide
this solidly one way or the other, all I can say is be careful what you wish
for.Let democracy work! Otherwise your rights will always be subject
to the whims of nine judicial activists.
@J Thompson...you said "If we just "happened", then no law can
constrain us." This is a very contested claim in the philosophic study of
practical rationality. David Gauthier has argued quite effectively in
"Morals by Agreement" that it is possible to construct a theory of
objective morality without a belief in God. I would recommend that book or at
least his succinct article "Why Contractarianism" Both of these works
quite strongly disprove your assertion that we cannot have objective morality
I disagree with Professor Davis in two specifics. First, I think it's
likely that the Court will just conclude that the plaintiffs lack standing in
the Prop 8 case. It would overturn Prop 8, without any larger repercussions.
The more interesting case to me is DOMA, which clearly violates the 'full
faith and credit' clause of the Constitution. I also think Roe was
decided correctly. If there's a right to privacy (and I think there
obviously is one), then the Court had no choice but to rule as they did.
We who are LDS are just going to have to hold to the values that our leaders
continue to teach us. That things like abortion, same-sex marriage, legal
drugs, easy access pornography, ect. ect. ect. are now becoming commonplace,
does not mean we change our values even if society does. Just because something
is new or different or modern or hip does not mean it is right. I think we who
are LDS are really going to see what it means to be called "a peculiar
people" more than ever as things quickly change in this world. Hold to the
The Skeptical ChymistIt does not necessarily work as a decision
making tool for individuals. Rather it is a societal test for what should be
allowed or prohibited. No, no one should be forced to have children (as the
test would also reveal) but as a societal norm, favoring having children wins
the moral nod as if all do, we continue, if none do, we do not.No
moral/ethical test (of which I am aware) works in all situations. I am simply
noting that this is not a ludicrous test unless fed ludicrous questions. It is
one tool we may use to help determine a moral course for our society.The question of harm is specifically what is always at issue in thorny moral
debates. Those proposing the change see none. Those fighting it see much.
Also, each see liberties infringed upon if the change is made/not made.Jonnyboy,Again, we are using this as a tool to determine what
should be prohibited, not required.
If anyone can marry for love, are polyandry a polygamy soon to follow?
The problem with upholding Prop 8 and striking down DOMA is a that a gay couple
married in a state where it is legal lose all their legal rights and protections
when moving to a state that has a ban on same-sex marriage.
Mike Richards, Government redefined marriage a very long time ago. Legally,
marriage is a contract. Each couple defines marriage in their own
ways. No two marriages are identical.You want us all to live
according to God's definition, but various religions can't even agree
on what that is.Also, I don't believe that anyone wants to
force straights into gay marriage. That's ludicrous - almost as ludicrous
as the people who say there is marriage equality because we are all free to
marry a consenting adult of the other gender.
I think that Mike Richards clearly defined the issue. Either God is master or
man is master. Which is it? Whether you believe in Mike's theology is not
the issue. Either we just "happened" or we were "created". If
we just "happened", then no law can constrain us. We are our own
masters. Might makes right. If we were "created", then our Creator has
the right to give us direction and define words.I can think of no
reason to take God out of the equation. Anyone with any kind of statistical
background knows that the probability of life, as we have it, is impossible.
Anyone with any understanding of Darwinism would be able to see that the
probability of a man "evolving" at exactly the same time as a woman
evoles, so that procreation could happen is statistically impossible, and then
to say that that exact impossibility happened for every species on this earth
automatically defeats Darwinism.As Mike said, we have two choices.
We can rebel against our creator, or we can accept him as the only one qualified
to define "marriage". It really is logically simple, straining at
matrimony (n.) c.1300, from Old French matremoine "matrimony,
marriage" and directly from Latin matrimonium "wedlock, marriage,"
from matrem (nominative mater) "mother" (see mother (n.1)) + -monium,
suffix signifying "action, state, condition."Our own
language defines matrimony as "the making of a mother."
Mike Richards: "Marriage has a purpose... It is a divinely appointed
ordinance that is used to procreate and to provide for those whom we have
welcomed into the world."I will grant you that one purpose of
marriage is to encourage procreation and the nurturing of the children produced.
I will even grant that it is a primary purpose. But it not the ONLY purpose.
Why else would the overwhelmingly LDS Utah legislature make the INability to
reproduce a mandatory legal requirement for certain couples to marry? That law
was certainly not intended to promote procreation, yet it is on the books. It
shows that there are other legitimate public policy purposes to marriage besides
procreation.However, let's assume your case is true, that the
only purpose of marriage is to improve the welfare of children. Then you are
ignoring the many children of gay couples (40,000 in California alone, according
to reports of the Prop 8 case, or about 1% of all children according to my
back-of-the-envelope estimates). Your opposition to gay marriage condemns those
children to the many documented diminished outcomes that attend to children
without married parents. Is that good for children?
@Mike RichardsThat is what LDS people believe about marriage. Which is
fine, you are allowed to believe whatever you feel like. However, that
isn't what the government believes about marriage, a government marriage
license is a contract, that affords rights regarding another persons life,
between consenting adults. What you are proposing Mike is to force LDS(others
want to force similar christian values)onto the general population. The way
marriage works according to the government currently is that a man and a woman
who aren't related can get married. Really old people can marry really
young people, different races can marry, you can get married and have 12 kids,
or have no kids. Your church isn't(and shouldn't) be forced to
recognize any marriage you don't think is valid. But the government
isn't your religion, and shouldn't be enforcing your values.
Mike's question is a good one: "What is marriage?" I'd answer
by exploring the reasons people marry.I believe most people marry
because they love the person they're marrying, they want to make a
commitment to each other. Many couples plan to have children, but not all.
Some couples want children and can't have them.As a practical
matter, marriage isn't required for love or commitment or family formation.
It doesn't prevent divorce or the end of relationships. Why get married?
The short answer is that is provides a host of legal benefits and protections,
such as inheritance of property and medical power of attorney, both of which can
be incredibly important.Mike offers a religious rationale for
marriage. If one is LDS, his argument is probably convincing and compelling.
But most people aren't LDS; something like 20 to 25% of Americans claim no
faith at all. Many of them get married. Many people of faith never marry.
Marriage may or may not be divinely ordained, but as a social institution, it
serves certain legal purposes that apply or should apply to all couples.
There are only two choices whenever a question arises. How we choose defines
us.God defined marriage. Some people would allow government to
re-define marriage. Which choice do you make? Do you stand with God or against
Him? Some people would limit birth. God told us to multiply and
replenish the earth. Do you stand with God or do you stand against Him? It's very simple. Those who reject God have told themselves that
they can make the rules and that they can force others to accept their rules.
They forget that rules were given to us to keep us from heartache and from
misery. Yes, they can do whatever they want, but they can't escape the
consequences of those choices.Marriage has a purpose. It is not to
save money on taxes. It is not to let someone into a hospital room. It is not
a cloak to hide our actions from public scrutiny. It is a divinely appointed
ordinance that is used to procreate and to provide for those whom we have
welcomed into the world.It needs no redefinition. God does not need
@Mike Richards, So you're ok with the federal government
deciding what marriage is? This is definitely contrary to your usual posts about
limiting the federal government. Wher ein the US Constitution does it say
anything about marriage? Or is the consitutional argument reserved for when it
suits your agenda? And why should the government of any person have
to abide by what some leader of a small religion declares? I couldn't care
less what the "prophet" has to say on anything. The majority of
Americans would probably agree with me.
More examples, of very much UNequal treatment: 'Gay Americans
pay MORE taxes for FEWER rights' - By Suze Orman – CNN –
02/25/13 'We all have 83-year-old Edith Windsor to thank for in
pushing the issue of same-sex marriage equality on to the national front. Edie
and her partner Thea were together for 40 years. How many marriages do you know
that have lasted that long? But when Thea died in 2009, Edie was hit with a
$363,000 federal estate tax bill because as a same-sex couple they were not
eligible for the unlimited marital deduction. Are we really a nation that says
it is fair and just to demand Edie pay a $363,000 penalty because she is
Reported by our own Deseret news: Gay Ca. veteran sues over denial
of benefits’ – By Jessica Gresko – AP – Published by
Dsnews – 02/01/12 ‘The lawsuit announced in Washington
involves a 12-year veteran of the Army, Tracey Cooper-Harris. After leaving the
Army she married Maggie Cooper-Harris in California in 2008. Two years later,
Tracey Cooper-Harris was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, and she has received
disability benefits through the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs as a result.
But her application for additional money and benefits that married veterans are
entitled to was denied.’ – article
Why should gay marriage become legal? 'Kept From a Dying
Partners Bedside' - By TARA PARKER-POPE - NY Times - 05/18/09'...the couples had prepared for a medical emergency, creating living
wills, advanced directives and power-of-attorney documents.'
And yet, even with Living Will, Medical Directive, Power of attorney and
emergency contact information... Janice Langbehn was kept from the
bedside of her dying partner, Lisa Pond. They were together for 18
Twin Lights please see my comment on why Kant's universalization criteria
@Twin LightsIf I accept your restriction of Mike Richard's test
to moral decisions, let me propose another counterexample.Is it
moral to choose not to have children? I would submit that this is a very
personal choice, that the state should permit the individuals involved to make.
Some may question their ability to be good parents (and many who fail to ask
this question should do so, in my opinion). They should have the right to avoid
parenthood.According to your (and Mike Richard's) test, it
would be wrong to permit people to make the choice not to have children, because
if everyone made this choice, where would society stand?The test of
what would happen if everyone made this choice, even when restricted to moral
decisions, is still a ludicrous test. As regards moral decisions, I believe in
giving individuals the maximum liberty possible, so long as there is no harm to
others and the liberties of others are not infringed.
The Skeptical Chymist,Mike Richard's test is not ludicrous but
is a rather standard part of ethical decision making.Your post
applied the test to non-moral decisions. There is no morality in choosing to be
a chemist over a banker or a farmer rather than a lawyer. Those are preferences
and are also things that (clearly) would not work in a society that has division
of labor.The application of the test is for ethical dilemmas.
Should we allow folks to do X and, if we do, what would be the ramifications if
everyone in society engaged in behavior X? (assuming we cannot hold the choice
to just a few "select" people whom we would trust with the decision).For example, if the behavior is murder, the effects are clearly negative
so it should be forbidden (and no, I am not equating murder and same-sex
marriage - just using a moral choice with an obvious negative outcome).Reference employment, the moral question fitting the test would be "should
everyone have the same profession?" and the answer would clearly be no
because it would destroy society.
@Mike RichardsI have never heard such a ridiculous argument as your
statement: The easiest test of any law is to simply ask, "What would happen
if everyone did what I want to do?"I'm a chemist. What
would happen if everyone did what I want to do? If everyone decided to become a
chemist, we would have total societal collapse. No farmers, no bankers (ok,
that might be a good thing :) ), no lawyers, you name it. Your test
of what is good for a society is ludicrous.
Mike Richards, society would be worse off if everyone decided to make bicycles,
so maybe we should not allow people to make bicycles. (dont you love reductio
ad absurdum?) This is the problem with Kant's universalization
requirement...there are very few things that would be good to have everyone do.
Also the universalization requirement leads to other obviously wrong answers.
It would be bad for everyone to get divorced so nobody should get divorced and
women should stay in abusive relationships.
@Mike RichardsI'm confused how society would crumble. Gay people have
been around since.....forever. Gay people that are alive today are already
living as couples. It's not like straight men would all of the sudden wake
up and want to be with other men(same with the ladies). Gay people are already
allowed to live the lifestyle they chose. Why not let them legally connect their
lives, the only difference between banning and allowing gay marriage is the
legal rights. The gay people who act married would be allowed to get married.
How on earth does this affect your life in ANY way shape or form?
Mike,You may consider them "the Lord's Prophets" who
are speaking for "God", but to everybody who isn't Mormon,
they're just one religion out of many. Why should they get to dictate
secular law for everyone?
Before deciding on "who" is allowed to marry, wouldn't it be better
to first agree on "what" marriage is? The Lord's
Prophets have said: "We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve
Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim
that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family
is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His
children."What is "equality"? Is a man prohibited from
marrying a woman? Is a woman prohibited from marrying a man? Is there any
inequality?We have laws to protect society. The easiest test of any
law is to simply ask, "What would happen if everyone did what I want to
do?" If society would suffer, then my "wants" and "desires"
need to be re-evaluated. It is easy to see that society would fail if everyone
served their sexual needs by having sexual relations with someone of the same
sex. God, no man, defined marriage.There is total
equality within that definition.Society would crumble if marriage
were redefined.The decision that must be reached is clear.
Regardless of the court's decision, gay marriage will be legal in the U.S.
before too long. People in their thirties and under support gay marriage by a
two-to-one ratio. In twenty years, when their generation is running the show,
they will make gay marriage legal everywhere. An overwhelming majority of the
public will demand it.
My first message got cut of, but I see that most understand my intent. Teachers have a difficult enough time teaching kids to respect one another
regardless of their differences. We need to grow up as a society and teach
respect for all citizens by example. It's time we stop marginalizing people
who don't fit into our narrow definition of perfection.
I happen to disagree with this article.Unlike the abortion issue,
Americans are fast accepting that GLBT Americans should be treated equally in
marriage; in just a few short years, a majority of Americans now support same
sex couple's rights to marry and that number is only going to continue to
grow as older, more obstinate Americans move on to the next life and the younger
generation moves into their place. Abortion is a completely
different type of issue.
So, you are stating that it should be up to each individual state to determine
whether or not it is legal to discriminate against their neighbors. I get it,
gays make up such a small percentage of the general population, so they really
don't have a say in their civil rights. We don't want to upset the
majority now, do we, because granting all the same rights to marry the adult