When it comes to gay marriage...

[Thorgasm]

I realize that this is highly anecdotal and completely unverifiable, but my parents are fulfilling that roll with the adult child who is fighting brain cancer right now. Their unity is a strength to my sister, and their marriage serves as a safety net for my sister's small children should she die from complications of the surgery. One such complication being the stroke she had last night.

I'm sorry about your sister. I know what you are going through.

 

[Tucker Case]

I've had FalicyFiles.com on my favorites list for a couple years. I know exactly what the naturalistic fallacy is, and I know that I did not make it.

My point in that response was that you did not show how I did. You did not make an argument and give the site as a source. You merely linked a site alone as if that proved anything.

I was making a comment on Universal morality, thus comments regarding natural law are irrelevant since morality does not need be natural.

Something old, something new, something borrowed, something new....toss the flowers to see who will get married next...these are rituals...you could argue that the ceremony is a ritual...but marriage in toto is not a mere ritual.

Marriage is a complete sociological organism.

The ritual is the entering into a FORMAL agreement for life. Informal agreements can exist without the rituals.

For the record: Yes, gay marriage meets the definition when that marriage "reproduces" through adoption.

For the record: No, heterosexual marriage does not meet the definition when it produces no children at all by any means.

Would it be such for any couple to decide to live in unity without the aid of ritual or contract so as to remain separate entities in the eys of all, but yet they choose to raise a family together, but are legally considered unmarried? Are they considered married sans ritual and contractual obligation, even should they choose to remain together for life?

I'm just trying to gian insite as to what the difference is between marriage and permanent relationship.

I argued that although the formation has passed, the maintenances is ongoing, so therefore the marriage should remain.

I gave an example of how that maintenance is ongoing when I gave the example of my sister and myself.

Please address my argument or not at all.

I did address the arguemnt. Benefits are no longer helpful for that maintanence, nor is marriage. Familial obligations extend further than that. If the parents are divorced, that doesn't change the maintanence aspect, but it does alter the benefits arrangement.

I most definitely DID address the argument.

It would demonstrate that gay marriage is no better then Britteny Spears.

No, it would demonstrate that the average gay marriage is no stronger than straight marriage. Does that mean that straight marriage is no better than Brittany Spears?

 

[Jerry]

Additional random commentary:

Sure, I hold that homosexuality itself is a biological error. I do not for an instant accept the notion that it merely a variation like skin color, and I like to think I can and have illustrated why in threads past.

Since I view homosexuality as a biological error, I assume that same-sex marriage is inherently equally dysfunctional and will typically be unable to perform the functions of marriage as sociological organism.

I will not support or condone gay marriage in the name of diversity.
I will not support or condone gay marriage in the name of equal protection of civil rights, expression of religious freedom or gender equality.

I don't care if you can't visit your dieing gay lover in the hospital.
I don't care if you have to pay more for medical coverage.

Not one of those topics justifies the sin of same-sex relations.

However;
In my compliance with scripture, I would impose my personal religious ideals into law and actively support gay marriage if I knew that the typical gay marriage would serve children who would otherwise grow up as orphans or worse.

This is a higher purpose which justifies the sin, and I would strive to be it's strongest champion.

 

[Tucker Case]

Additional random commentary:

Sure, I hold that homosexuality itself is a biological error. I do not for an instant accept the notion that it merely a variation like skin color, and I like to think I can and have illustrated why in threads past.

Since I view homosexuality as a biological error, I assume that same-sex marriage is inherently equally dysfunctional and will typically be unable to perform the functions of marriage as sociological organism.

I will not support or condone gay marriage in the name of diversity.
I will not support or condone gay marriage in the name of equal protection of civil rights, expression of religious freedom or gender equality.

I don't care if you can't visit your dieing gay lover in the hospital.
I don't care if you have to pay more for medical coverage.

Not one of those topics justifies the sin of same-sex relations.

No problem. You have every right to hold these views. I have no problem whatsoever with you feeling this way.

 

[Jerry]

Would it be such for any couple to decide to live in unity without the aid of ritual or contract so as to remain separate entities in the eys of all, but yet they choose to raise a family together, but are legally considered unmarried? Are they considered married sans ritual and contractual obligation, even should they choose to remain together for life?

I'm just trying to gian insite as to what the difference is between marriage and permanent relationship.

Many states have had to deal with this arrangement and the problems it creates. The solution was common law marriage.

I find a humorous nature of the law. The state sees 2 people living together and raising children, thumbing their nose in their refusal to marry, so the state marrys them with out their consent.

I object to people taking the title without fulfilling the obligations, and you bring up people who fulfill the obligations without taking the title.

Imo the easy solution is to deny the title from the former, and automatic confer it onto the ladder, rather either of these groups like it or not.

I did address the arguemnt. Benefits are no longer helpful for that maintanence, nor is marriage. Familial obligations extend further than that. If the parents are divorced, that doesn't change the maintanence aspect, but it does alter the benefits arrangement.

I most definitely DID address the argument.

Here's a more specific example:
This is not hypothetical.
My sister is unmarried, her children are very small, this makes my father her next-of-kin. My stepmother is the one who was free to be there for her spinal tap the other day, not my father. If my father and stepmother were not married, making my step mother a defacto next-of-kin also, my stepmother would not have been allowed into that part of the ward and offer moral support to my sister, and she would have been alone.

That is a small example, but imo it is enough to show that the need to preserve the legal aspect of marriage after the children are grown is present, especially in the absence of a 'compelling state interest' to terminate the marriage license.

No, it would demonstrate that the average gay marriage is no stronger than straight marriage. Does that mean that straight marriage is no better than Brittany Spears?

The divorce rate shows that hyper-individualism has taken it's hold on marriage per-se (foolish unions and easy divorce), but as gay-marriage is born from hyper-individualism (emphasis made on personal sexual choices and not good of the family), and striate marriage is born from basic needs of the species (procreation and community support), gay marriage per-se today is no better then dysfunctional striate marriage.

Neither of those are worth respect.

No one is stopping anyone from having sex, living together, etc; but imo if your not going to do what marriage is all about, then leave it alone.

All the various benefits of marriage exist as tools to serve the formation and maintenance of the family, so if your not going to form and maintain a family, you have no right to the tools.

The reverse is also true.
If you are going to form and maintain a family, then it is in everyone's best interest that you become married and use the tools therein.

 

[Tucker Case]

Here's a more specific example:
This is not hypothetical.
My sister is unmarried, her children are very small, this makes my father her next-of-kin. My stepmother is the one who was free to be there for her spinal tap the other day, not my father. If my father and stepmother were not married, making my step mother a defacto next-of-kin also, my stepmother would not have been allowed into that part of the ward and offer moral support to my sister, and she would have been alone.

That is a small example, but imo it is enough to show that the need to preserve the legal aspect of marriage after the children are grown is present, especially in the absence of a 'compelling state interest' to terminate the marriage license.

Good example, but to be fair, this is also a compelling reason for homosexual marriages, is it not? I know of a gay couple where one of the two has children form a previous marriage before he came out. Would it not also be beneficial that this fellow's partner enjoy the same rights as your step-mother?

No one is stopping anyone from having sex, living together, etc; but imo if your not going to do what marriage is all about, then leave it alone.

All the various benefits of marriage exist as tools to serve the formation and maintenance of the family, so if your not going to form and maintain a family, you have no right to the tools.

The reverse is also true.
If you are going to form and maintain a family, then it is in everyone's best interest that you become married and use the tools therein.

So would you support a legal definition of marriage that stated that formation and maintanence of a family, or at least an oath to attempt to do so, is required in the union, regardless of the gender of the individuals?

That would seem to alleviate both potential problems you have described while allowing the rights to be enjoyed by any and all who choose to do so.

 

[Jerry]

Good example, but to be fair, this is also a compelling reason for homosexual marriages, is it not? I know of a gay couple where one of the two has children form a previous marriage before he came out. Would it not also be beneficial that this fellow's partner enjoy the same rights as your step-mother?

It is a compelling reason to allow gay marriage. It's an example of why I don't actively oppose gay marriage, in fact.

I don't support gay marriage because as I understand it, gay couples with children are a small minority of gay couples over all, and this is reflected in the main pro-gm argument's bases in sexual practices and not familial stability.

So would you support a legal definition of marriage that stated that formation and maintanence of a family, or at least an oath to attempt to do so, is required in the union, regardless of the gender of the individuals?

That would seem to alleviate both potential problems you have described while allowing the rights to be enjoyed by any and all who choose to do so.

If there were a significant demographic of brothers and sisters who were adopting up children out of the system, I would support incest. That's how far I would take it.