Absolutely. I reject the concept of "natural rights".
This is true. That's why laws are changeable based on societal needs and knowledge that we gain. Our current laws reflect information that we have learned... not information we knew 200 years ago.
If a future study came along and found that gay marriage is actually detrimental, I would think there would be many who would use this information to abolish it. Depending on the level of detriment, I would be on their side. Things need to be weighed in all areas. And yes, I think the APA stamp of approval matters.
As I said, I do not see anything as a fundamental right, which is why it's benefit to society is based on current knowledge, societal/individual needs, and is relevant based on what is discovered when the issue is studied.
You must admit this is pretty thin gruel given the general foundations of the arguments in favor of same-sex marriage. There are few who would agree with you on this. Very, very few, if any proponents of same-sex marriage argue for it primarily because it's a benefit to society. I'm sure they don't mind information saying it is, but in no way would it matter to them if that information wasn't there.
By making these arguments, you pre-torpedo the case for same-sex marriage, making it entirely dependent on information which could change at any time.
So, maybe you think this "easily dispenses" with the argument for polygamy, but if it does, on these terms, it pretty much does the same for same-sex marriage.
I, of course, don't agree, and believe in sound fundamental rights. And I've encountered no argument for same-sex marriage as a fundamental right which would not also apply to polygamy.
And, IMO, this is why the GM argument usually fails at the legislative and public sense. Gay rights activists argue from a discriminatory position... a failure of a position.
The societal benefits position, based on evidence, research, and definitions is an easy winner.
I am unconcerned with the future in this respect. It could change. If it did, it would be appropriate to try to change the law to reflect the current state of research. But it also might NOT change. And if it does not, the current laws remain.
Not currently, it doesn't.
Since I reject fundamental rights and have seen nothing to give them credence, my position is based on evidenciary information and societal change and relativity. Currently, same-sex marriage has been shown to be beneficial to individuals, family, and society. Polygamy has not. This is why government should sanction the former and not the latter.
We come from two completely different philosophies, here and will probably never see eye to eye, not only on the issue, but on how we arrive at our conclusions.
But it's how it's winning the judicial arena.
In which arena? Not judicially. I can't imagine it's going to gain much traction legislatively or from a populist position, either, so I don't see at all how it's "easy."
It can change at any time. If same-sex marriage becomes universal, and new info comes along -- which it may well, considering the opportunity for actual broad-based empirical observation, which hasn't been there before -- you're really going to lobby to repeal it? Or vociferously support the repeal? Really?
I'm quite skeptical.
OK, but your arguments are not the arguments of the vast, vast majority of the same-sex marriage proponents, and they are unlikely to sway any of the players in the key avenues to getting it done. You're pretty much on your own island here.
Besides, it's not so much about that as it is "easily dispensing" with arguments for polygamy while advocating same-sex marriage. On your own terms, they rise and fall on the same basis.
You don't mean all natural rights do you?Absolutely. I reject the concept of "natural rights".
You don't mean all natural rights do you?
Thanks for being upfront and honest.
I agree 100%
Perhaps it is how it will win... but after how long? The discriminatory position is fairly easily rebutted, logically. The benefit position is not. IMO, if the pro-GM position had been from the benefit standpoint from the beginning, GM would probably already be a reality.
I disagree. From a judicial standpoint, evidence and proof are often what wins.
Much of the GM effort has been via the legislative process, a process that is more based on popular opinion. That's why there has been so much failure.
Be skeptical. If there was solid, new information that refuted everything that was previously known, I would change my position.
But what if that never happens? Then from an evidenciary standpoint, GM is the law.
I don't disagree with you, here. I have argued with folks on DP how the discriminatory position is a failed position... and I can argue it pretty well. There are too many holes.
The societal benefit position does not suffer from those holes.
Currently, based on the knowledge of the day, it is easy to dispense with arguments for polygamy and easy to advocate GM.
I am uninterested in what could happen or what could be learned. Those issues are irrelevant. I base my position on what IS happening and what IS known. Makes sense to do so.
You need to start accepting the fact that it is a moral issue and not necessarily a religions one for some.
As I have said before I was against it even before I was a Christian.
Many issues have no religious bearing on them for me like abortion. I think abortion should be a last resort and only used in cases on incest or rape. It has nothing to do with my religion at all. I assume this is true for others and other issues like gay marraige.
Just shows that the arguments against gay marriage are root in religious bigotry and nothing else.
Well that's certainly an unconventional view. To which philosophy do you subscribe?If you are referring to the type of natural rights that John Locke proposed, yes, absolutely.
Either that or your argument is rooted in vacuityJust shows that the arguments against gay marriage are root in religious bigotry and nothing else.
See below.
The discriminatory position is the only position you can argue judicially, because the definition of marriage and all of the public policy around it is exclusively a legislative matter. The judiciary has nothing to say about it unless it violates rights.
Why do you think popular opinion would change significantly in light of your argument?
Not the point. Would you argue it? Would you tell a married couple to their faces that, so sorry, we were wrong, and now you can't be married anymore?
Well, that is self-evident.
I have pointed some out myself.
Then you have to get there legislatively. Good luck.
I think there is a great deal of societal benefit in NOT basing public policy for something so fundamental to people's lives on something so potentially capricious -- particularly if it may mean, as you say it does, that the right to marry could be taken away later on that basis.
Well, as I said above, good public policy takes the possible consequences into account, particularly when they are foreseeable, as they are in this case.
Well that's certainly an unconventional view. To which philosophy do you subscribe?
The discriminatory position cannot be argued, judicially, successfully... at least I don't think it can. The argument against gay marriage from a discrimination position is pretty solid. Gays can get married. There is no provision in any law in regards to marriage that says we have the RIGHT to marry anyone we want. No, the way to win would be for a state to pass GM and then for it to get challenged judicially... and for it to be defended via the benefits argument.
People keep getting thrown the discrimination argument which is a negative, conflictual argument. The benefits argument has a positive, helping connotation that could tap into the more altruistic nature in folks. The current climate of the GM debate is too confrontational, by both sides. Reduce the conflict and increase the perception of societal benefits and l cooperation
Probably. I would currently argue that no one should be married, that all marriages should be changed to civil unions and that marriage should be left to the church.
Uh-huh.
And judicially. And someone has to go at it from my position. I haven't seen that happen yet.
I disagree. If we learned tomorrow that automobiles were completely ruining society, it would make sense to eliminate them.
But one also must understand the significant unlikelihood of something so fundamental being found to be completely flawed and dysfunctional. In general, research has proven inclusion, not exclusion in the context of what we are discussing.
Good public policy would take the possible consequences into account, but not EVERY possibility, even the most remote. As I said, research tends to prove inclusion, not exclusion.
If, suddenly, something changed, the law could change with it.
Just shows that the arguments against gay marriage are root in religious bigotry and nothing else. Thank you for driving that home yet again.
Oh please.....Blackdog. The only people against gay marriage are the right-wing Christians who believe the GOD is against gay marriage.
This should fill you in on how wrong you are.
These are the same people who thought that GOD was against inter-racial marriage. The same people who thought at one point that GOd was against shell-fish as well.
I don't think you get it.
"Societal benefit" isn't a judicial question. It's a legislative one. Courts don't strike down laws because they prevent an esoteric "societal benefit." They can only do so if the legislature overstepped its authority -- did something it's not authorized to do or violated a fundamental right.
Besides, you've shifted the argument. If a state passes same-sex marriage, then, well, it's there, and there's really no basis on which to challenge it in court. The only recourse for those who don't want it is to get it repealed, or get a constitutional amendment passed, if that can be done by popular vote. There's nothing in particular for a court to do with the first -- it can't rule "this idea is so good that we hold it can never be repealed" -- and if a constitutional amendment is passed, there's really nothing for a court to do.
Of course, this all hinges on same-sex marriage being reached legislatively first.
I don't think it's that simple.
That's even less likely.
Because it's a judicial dead end. I already explained. This isn't how it works.
Automobiles are not marriage.
It has never been studied on a societal level. It could not have been.
"Tends" to based on small sample sizes.
Yes, that is understood. And it's the problem.
It still cannot be shown that the woman living next door to anyone on this forum taking a second husband affects anyone or inhibits another's rights nor affects another's marriage. Pro ssm obsevers view that same sex marriage can't be denied by government for those exact reasons and yet use that same government to deny others that same right.
Unless I'm mistaken, this is called hypocrisy, and it appears blatant to me.
The government has no reason to sanction something that is not beneficial to society. The basic argument for promoting GM is, for the government to sanction it, is it beneficial to the government, society, the family, and the individual. Evidence shows that it is, therefore, since there is proof, the government would have reason to sanction it. The same can NOT be said for plural marriage. If you can find evidence for this, present it.
And your argument that, just because what happens next door doesn't affect me means that it should not be inhibited is faulty and ridiculous. That is like saying that if your next door neighbor was abusing their child in the sanctity of their own home, without any impact on you, it would be OK for this act to be legal. See how foolish your argument is?
Why don't you understand that if you allow gays to marry then you have to allow other groups as classes of people to have the same right..Maybe you have no problem with that but I do..............
However, the judiciary can strike down or accept a law if they deem the societal benefit of said law (or of striking down the law). Louis Brandeis used to include social impact information when he decided upon a ruling. I recently read the SC's ruling on partial-birth abortion, and they used social benefit information to rule on that law, also. The judiciary uses whatever information they can to make decisions.
There are two issues, here. The first is to have the Supreme Court strike down DOMA. This has been attempted via discrimination lawsuits, but not via a social benefit attempt. Based on past SC behavior, this is a far more logical attack and, IMO, would have more of a chance of striking down the law.
Second. IF a GM law were passed, either federally or in a state and an attempt to strike it down were made, the social benefit defense holds more water than the discrimination defense. In both cases, judicially or legislatively, the discrimination position is not strong, but the social benefit position is.
Not necessarily, though probably.
What I said was a broad stroke, but ultimately, it IS that simple.
I agree, though it is the most logical position.
No, as I explained above.
Irrelevant. The analogy addresses your point of what could happen if we found that something was ruining society that had been in existence for a long time. It applies.
Of course it has... just as much as many other things have.
Reasonable sample sizes and universally consistent results. This is what is needed to identify credibility in research... which this research has.
What would be the problem with that? That would be a GOOD thing, changing something that needs changing.
Why does this ridiculous argument keep being brought up as if it was legitimate?
Why don't you understand that if you allow gays to marry then you have to allow other groups as classes of people to have the same right..Maybe you have no problem with that but I do..............
The reason we "don't understand" is because it's not true.
Saying that there will no longer be discrimination against gays does NOT mean that therefore you have to allow polygamy or people marrying toasters or any other slippery slope outrageous thing you may claim.
Nothing under our laws would require that in the slightest. It didn't happen when we held that interracial marriages were unconstitutional, either.
It's a silly argument. It's not going to happen
and there is no law whatsoever that would require it.
It hasn't happened in those states that have made gay marriage legal
and it hasn't happened in any other country that has made gay marriage legal.
Seriously, there is NO legal argument against gay marriage.
"I don't like it" is NOT a legal argument.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?