7
   

Gay Marriage & Conflict Resolution

 
 
jackowens
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jun, 2010 02:15 pm
@joefromchicago,
Dear joefromchicago,

In reply to your post of 6/13/10:

Quote:
"I'm not sure I understand the distinction. It seems to me you're saying that you would support gay marriage, just not gay marriage ceremonies. I can't fathom why you'd make that distinction."

1. I would not support making homosexual marriages a part of our current cultural institution.

2. I would adopt a hands-off policy of marriage as a private ceremony of the couple's devising.

If that's not clear, please ask the appropriate questions to help me understand what puzzles you.

Quote:
"I have no idea what a 'community-approved' marriage might be outside of the political context."

Generally speaking, what is community-approved/traditional is the equivalent of cultural institution. Are you unfamiliar with what a cultural institution is? Institutions in that sense are given in just about any dictionary.

Quote:
"When it comes to the government choosing to recognize some marriages and not others, however, I have a big problem."

I make a distinction between a) the politicians, bureaucrats and judiciary (government) and b) the citizenry. How about, instead of the politicians, bureaucrats and judiciary, the citizenry/community's recognizing/not recognizing some marriages? Would you have a big problem with the that?

Quote:
"If the state discriminates against a class of persons for no good reason,..."

Why shouldn't discriminating between what is a sexual perversion and what isn't be reasonable?

Regards,

Jack

jackowens
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jun, 2010 02:26 pm
@Butrflynet,
Dear Butrflynet,

In reply to your post of 6/13/10:

Quote:
"If a young hetero couple elopes against the wishes of their family, and the family expresses their disapproval and acts on it by ostracizing the couple from family activities, does that make their marriage illegitimate?"

My wife and I did that, although I wouldn't make that a general recommendation.

But why would you suppose such a marriage to be illegitimate? My wife's family has no trouble at all with our marriage itself and is proud of the son it produced.

Regards,

Jack
0 Replies
 
jackowens
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jun, 2010 02:41 pm
@failures art,
Dear failures art,

In reply to your post of 6/14/10:

Looks like we have a methodological problem. Let's see.

Quote:
"The error is in your tailoring your argument against gay marriage by arguing against butt-sex and scissoring. Marriage is the institution, and straight couples becoming married isn't required to promote heterosexual sexual relationships. You're over-sexualizing the institution."

You may be right, but are you accusing me of a fallacy (named and its application explained) or a contradiction? Or are you simply ignoring "A", what I laid out as the first plank of the flooring I suggested that we use?

Regards,

Jack

joefromchicago
 
  3  
Reply Mon 14 Jun, 2010 03:00 pm
@jackowens,
jackowens wrote:

Quote:
"I'm not sure I understand the distinction. It seems to me you're saying that you would support gay marriage, just not gay marriage ceremonies. I can't fathom why you'd make that distinction."

1. I would not support making homosexual marriages a part of our current cultural institution.

2. I would adopt a hands-off policy of marriage as a private ceremony of the couple's devising.

I don't know how you can oppose making something "part of our current cultural institution." I suppose you can just rip up the RSVPs that you're getting to all those gay weddings to which you've been invited. Apart from that, there's not much that you, as an individual, can do except refuse to participate. On the other hand, if everyone else in the culture wants to make it "part of our current cultural institution," there's not much you can do to stop it. Don't take it too hard: I feel the same way about hip-hop music and stock car racing.

jackowens wrote:
Generally speaking, what is community-approved/traditional is the equivalent of cultural institution. Are you unfamiliar with what a cultural institution is? Institutions in that sense are given in just about any dictionary.

I still don't get your distinction between gay marriage, which you would allow, and gay marriage ceremonies, about which you seem to have a big problem. How are these gay people supposed to get married if they don't have ceremonies? Are there certain types of ceremonies they would be allowed to have, or certain aspects of traditional ceremonies that are off limits to gays?

jackowens wrote:
I make a distinction between a) the politicians, bureaucrats and judiciary (government) and b) the citizenry. How about, instead of the politicians, bureaucrats and judiciary, the citizenry/community's recognizing/not recognizing some marriages? Would you have a big problem with the that?

How would the citizenry express its disapproval except through its political organs?

jackowens wrote:
Why shouldn't discriminating between what is a sexual perversion and what isn't be reasonable?

That's begging the question.
failures art
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jun, 2010 08:28 pm
@jackowens,
jackowens wrote:

Looks like we have a methodological problem. Let's see.
Quote:
"The error is in your tailoring your argument against gay marriage by arguing against butt-sex and scissoring. Marriage is the institution, and straight couples becoming married isn't required to promote heterosexual sexual relationships. You're over-sexualizing the institution."

You may be right, but are you accusing me of a fallacy (named and its application explained) or a contradiction? Or are you simply ignoring "A", what I laid out as the first plank of the flooring I suggested that we use?

What I'm saying is that you're attempting to dictate the terms in which this topic is discussed. If you plan to force the issue of gay marriage to be a discussion on sexual perversion, you poison the well.

If a person's personal beliefs (be them religious or otherwise) guide them to not approve of homosexual behavior or the more specific marriage of same sex couples, fine. They are not required to approve of either the sexual behavior or the participation in the institution of marriage. Their approval is not required for ANY marriage.

If people (total strangers at that) disapproved of your marriage, can you still legally marry? I'm looking for a yes or no. You can or you cannot marry in the face of disapproval alone.

A
R
T
cassavetes
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jun, 2010 10:55 pm
I'm anti marriage in general... denouncement of freedom on the basis of the multiplication of expectations and obligations, all on the foundation of the perceived ownership of one another which is defined by a sheet of paper confirmed by the government and ceremony costing(on average) in the 10's of thousands of dollars. If two people can recognize eachothers affection as being shared, and they can share their affection until it ends, then why is there any need for marriage? I can understand the societal implications of acceptance if marriage is universal amongst all human beings of sexual affiliation, but if it was really about marriage, perhaps an investigation into its own validity should be made. Personally, I have never seen a marriage I have envied and therefore I find the whole process meaningless.
failures art
 
  3  
Reply Mon 14 Jun, 2010 11:10 pm
@cassavetes,
If we could grant ourselves the rights and privileges that come with the status of marriage, I would agree with you.

A
R
T
jackowens
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2010 03:01 pm
@joefromchicago,
Dear joefromchicago,
In reply to your post of 6/14/10:

Quote:
"I don't know how you can oppose making something 'part of our current cultural institution.'"

By voting on the issue as we did here in California. The vote, in effect, was to reject making homosexual marriage a part of our current cultural institution.

Quote:
"On the other hand, if everyone else in the culture wants to make it 'part of our current cultural institution,' there's not much you can do to stop it.".

Yes, but they didn't here in California. It was voted down.

Are you unfamiliar with the vote on Proposition 8 here in California?

Quote:
"How are these gay people supposed to get married if they don't have ceremonies?"

Homosexuals can have marriage ceremonies and consider themselves married; they simply aren't accepted as part of the current cultural institution. That's what the vote was about.

Quote:
"How would the citizenry express its disapproval except through its political organs?"

I'm not sure that I understand that question.

The citizenry expressed its disapproval by popular vote. That disapproval may have been opposed by the politicians, bureaucrats and/or the judiciary, but it is currently in effect because of disapproval of the citizenry.

jackowens wrote: "Why shouldn't discriminating between what is a sexual perversion and what isn't be reasonable?"

Quote:
"That's begging the question."

That's a start. You've given me the name of a fallacy, but what's lacking is an explanation of how you're applying it. I need to know so that, if you're right, I need to change what I've said.

Regards,

Jack

jackowens
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2010 03:34 pm
@failures art,
Dear failures art,

In reply to your post of 6/14/10:

Quote:
"What I'm saying is that you're attempting to dictate the terms in which this topic is discussed."

Not really. I'm simply trying to nail down an agreed-on method for arriving at a resolution of the controversy over homosexual marriage. Some things are taken for granted but in this controversy we need to make sure that we're in agreement as to what they are.

For instance, if I say that I insist that the resolution of this controversy be factual, rational and fair and, if not, I refuse to participate, would you say that I'm attempting to dictate the terms in which this topic is discussed?

Quote:
"If you plan to force the issue of gay marriage to be a discussion on sexual perversion, you poison the well."

I don't follow that. It sounds like a left-handed way of trying to exclude from the discussion the facts and reasoning most people have for disapproving of the institutionalization of homosexual marriage. If there's any force involved in what you say it's on your part in trying to dictate what will and will not be discussed. For my part I'll discuss any aspect of the matter you care to.

Quote:
"If people (total strangers at that) disapproved of your marriage, can you still legally marry?"

Let me start with "no". Go from there.

Quote:
"You can or you cannot marry in the face of disapproval alone."

The obvious rejoinder is in regard to just what the disapproval is based on. My answer is yes, but it can't simply be arbitrary. (And of course we're not talking about private ceremonies. Right?)

Regards,

Jack
joefromchicago
 
  3  
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2010 04:29 pm
@jackowens,
jackowens wrote:

Quote:
"I don't know how you can oppose making something 'part of our current cultural institution.'"

By voting on the issue as we did here in California. The vote, in effect, was to reject making homosexual marriage a part of our current cultural institution.

So let me get this straight: you'd vote in favor of gay marriage, except when given the opportunity to vote in favor of gay marriage, in which case you would vote against gay marriage. Is that about right?

jackowens wrote:
Quote:
"On the other hand, if everyone else in the culture wants to make it 'part of our current cultural institution,' there's not much you can do to stop it.".

Yes, but they didn't here in California. It was voted down.

Are you unfamiliar with the vote on Proposition 8 here in California?

Prop 8 was a political measure, not a cultural one.

jackowens wrote:
Quote:
"How are these gay people supposed to get married if they don't have ceremonies?"

Homosexuals can have marriage ceremonies and consider themselves married; they simply aren't accepted as part of the current cultural institution. That's what the vote was about.

Well, no: they can have marriage ceremonies that don't have any legal significance, but since those ceremonies typically resemble heterosexual marriage ceremonies, they are really nothing more than cultural events (or the simulacra of cultural events -- it's difficult to tell sometimes). In other words, if a heterosexual marriage ceremony is a cultural institution, then a gay marriage ceremony that looks an awful lot like a heterosexual marriage ceremony is a cultural institution too.

jackowens wrote:
Quote:
"How would the citizenry express its disapproval except through its political organs?"

I'm not sure that I understand that question.

How does the citizenry say "we don't want this as part of our culture" except through political means?

jackowens wrote:
The citizenry expressed its disapproval by popular vote.

Yeah, like that.

jackowens wrote:
jackowens wrote: "Why shouldn't discriminating between what is a sexual perversion and what isn't be reasonable?"

Quote:
"That's begging the question."

That's a start. You've given me the name of a fallacy, but what's lacking is an explanation of how you're applying it. I need to know so that, if you're right, I need to change what I've said.

You're assuming that which is not proven. You object to gay marriage because it somehow legitimizes sexual perversion, but that assumes that gay marriage is the equivalent of sexual perversion. So, in other words, you object to gay marriage because it's gay marriage.

I don't, however, accept your assumption, so there's no point in answering a question which rests on that assumption. If you want to base your objections to gay marriage on the "sexual perversion" issue, you'll need to make a plausible connection between the two -- you can't just assume it. That's begging the question.
failures art
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2010 05:04 pm
@jackowens,
I think I understand the problem here Jack. Do you support

1) The Equal Protection Clause
2) Full Faith and Credit Clause

Both clauses represent cultural values.

With the CA vote on Prop8, and the DOMA passed by Congress, people have certainly taken actions to show disapproval of homosexuals. They have however additionally put the above to clauses in conflict with their desire to marginalize homosexuals. They have yet to explain how they intend to defend both. They cannot coexist.

Simply put, what is more valuable: Imposing regulation on homosexual relationships or ethical application of the law? Perhaps an even simpler question is to ask if you expect the law to protect your rights? If so, what clause do you think will guarantee that you're protected fairly?

You seem fixed on the idea of "approval" and "disapproval." People however can approve of unethical things and vice versa. To briefly depart form the topic: Do you believe in the protection of speech you do not approve of? Can a culture show disapproval to certain types of speech (racism etc) without banning it? Why is it necessary to ban homosexuals from marrying to convey your disapproval? Are you incapable of disapproving without legal obstruction?

A
R
T



0 Replies
 
failures art
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2010 06:49 pm
@jackowens,
jackowens wrote:

Quote:
"What I'm saying is that you're attempting to dictate the terms in which this topic is discussed."

Not really. I'm simply trying to nail down an agreed-on method for arriving at a resolution of the controversy over homosexual marriage. Some things are taken for granted but in this controversy we need to make sure that we're in agreement as to what they are.

For instance, if I say that I insist that the resolution of this controversy be factual, rational and fair and, if not, I refuse to participate, would you say that I'm attempting to dictate the terms in which this topic is discussed?

I believe you're attempting to assert that the issue of marriage hinges on some sort of definition of sexual perversion. I do not agree. I believe that all laws are for the protection of order. Any restriction on individual rights and liberties must demonstrate a compelling NECESSITY.

Marriage is a civil union, and with it comes many rights and liberties. I've yet to hear a compelling argument that it is a necessity.
jackowens wrote:

Quote:
"If you plan to force the issue of gay marriage to be a discussion on sexual perversion, you poison the well."

I don't follow that. It sounds like a left-handed way of trying to exclude from the discussion the facts and reasoning most people have for disapproving of the institutionalization of homosexual marriage. If there's any force involved in what you say it's on your part in trying to dictate what will and will not be discussed. For my part I'll discuss any aspect of the matter you care to.

Argumentum ad populum.

The idea that "most people" disapprove of homosexuals marrying, does not mean that the prohibition of same sex marriage is based in any sort of rational thought or supported with any sound logic.

Nothing sinister in my statement. You've not justified how discussing sexual perversion is applicable to this topic.

jackowens wrote:

Quote:
"If people (total strangers at that) disapproved of your marriage, can you still legally marry?"

Let me start with "no". Go from there.

This is factually incorrect. You very much have the legal ability to get married regardless of approval of others, and your marriage (approved of or otherwise will retain all of the rights and privileges that come with it from the state.

jackowens wrote:

Quote:
"You can or you cannot marry in the face of disapproval alone."

The obvious rejoinder is in regard to just what the disapproval is based on. My answer is yes, but it can't simply be arbitrary. (And of course we're not talking about private ceremonies. Right?)

You just said "no" above. Which is it?

Either way, the reason the disapproval is will not have an effect on it's legality. Even very real concerns (far from arbitrary) will not legally prohibit you from marrying.

A
R
T
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2010 07:11 pm
@jackowens,
jackowens wrote:
My vote would be to permit homosexuals to marry, which they already can and do, by means of their preferred procedure as long as others aren't obliged to approve of such marriages.

How is that different from heterosexual marriages? If you marry the woman of your dreams, your mother in law may well disapprove. The law doesn't care--and neither does it need to care if you marry a man and people disapprove of that marriage.

jackowens wrote:
My reasoning is that traditional marriage is an outgrowth of biology, anatomy, physiology, the obvious means by which Homo sapiens as a species is perpetuated and the fact that Homo sapiens has a sexual reproductive system rather than, say, a parthenogenetic or fissiparous one. This is in contrast to homosexual marriage, which abandons those norms and, instead, uses simple preference as normative.

1) Would you approve of disqualifying old heterosexuals from marriage, on the grounds that their biology, anatomies, and physiology can no longer serve to perpetuate homo sapiens?

2) Are you aware that law in the Anglo-Saxon tradition, going back to at least to Blackstone, conceives of marriage as a civil contract? The legal basis for a marriage is that both parties are able to enter a contract with each other, no more, no less. A man and a woman can enter a contract with each other, therefore they can marry. So can a man with a man, and a woman with a woman.

jackowens wrote:
But if we use simple preference, how, in fairness, can we disapprove of bestial marriages, which also already take place?

Under what tradition of law can beasts enter into contracts? Beasts are incapable of informed consent, so the law rightfully ignores their preferences, and doesn't let them enter into contracts.
cassavetes
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2010 10:52 pm
@failures art,
A great reason for it be universal then Smile
0 Replies
 
jackowens
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jun, 2010 12:47 am
@joefromchicago,
Dear joefromchicago,

In reply to your post of 6/15/10:

Quote:
"So let me get this straight: you'd vote in favor of gay marriage, except when given the opportunity to vote in favor of gay marriage, in which case you would vote against gay marriage. Is that about right?"

No.

I would have no objection to two people of the same sex marrying in their own private ceremony. They and a certain segment of the population would then consider them married but I and the majority of the population would not. Again, that's what the vote was about.

Quote:
"In other words, if a heterosexual marriage ceremony is a cultural institution, then a gay marriage ceremony that looks an awful lot like a heterosexual marriage ceremony is a cultural institution too."

That doesn't make sense. Are you, joefromchicago, invalidating the vote on Proposition 8 and repealing the law established by the citizenry in that regard?

Quote:
"You're assuming that which is not proven."

I guess that's a way of expressing what you have in mind, but really my belief, as such, is valid as my belief although it may be wrong, which I admit.

So to find out, let me start with this:

I assume that you think that my belief is false, but do you believe that there are such things as sexual perversions?

Regards,

Jack
Krumple
 
  2  
Reply Thu 17 Jun, 2010 01:29 am
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:
jackowens wrote:
My reasoning is that traditional marriage is an outgrowth of biology, anatomy, physiology, the obvious means by which Homo sapiens as a species is perpetuated and the fact that Homo sapiens has a sexual reproductive system rather than, say, a parthenogenetic or fissiparous one. This is in contrast to homosexual marriage, which abandons those norms and, instead, uses simple preference as normative.

1) Would you approve of disqualifying old heterosexuals from marriage, on the grounds that their biology, anatomies, and physiology can no longer serve to perpetuate homo sapiens?


I would also bring up the point. What if a male or female before marriage had an operation which removed or prevented the possibility of successful reproduction? Should they not be allowed to marry because they can not perpetuate homosapiens?

The argument about gay marriage turning into beastial marriage is worn out and honestly from a last ditch effort to try and make marriage about sex when it is clearly not about sex. There have been court cases where women have entered marriage and decided they were not ever going to have sex with their husbands after the marriage. The court found that they had no legal responsibility to be obligated to have sex with their husbands. If marriage is about sex then by all means shouldn't these women be obligated to have sex with their husbands? The answer is no, and like the courts agree, marriage is not a contract about sex or reproduction.
0 Replies
 
jackowens
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jun, 2010 01:31 am
@failures art,
Dear failures art,

In reply to your posts of 6/15/10:

Quote:
"Perhaps an even simpler question is to ask if you expect the law to protect your rights?"

Yes, and yours too. In general terms, every one has the right to marry any one person of the opposite sex who will accept him/her.

Quote:
"Do you believe in the protection of speech you do not approve of?"

It depends on the nature of the speech and the circumstances.

Quote:
"Can a culture show disapproval to certain types of speech (racism etc) without banning it?"

Yes, it can be disapproved but tolerated without legally banning it.

Quote:
"Why is it necessary to ban homosexuals from marrying to convey your disapproval?"

Because, as it stands now, we either institutionalize --meaning approve of-- a sexual perversion or not.

Quote:
"Are you incapable of disapproving without legal obstruction?"

Yes; it's called toleration. We tolerate homosexual marriages as private ceremonies but disapprove of them as part of the current cultural institution.

Quote:
"I believe you're attempting to assert that the issue of marriage hinges on some sort of definition of sexual perversion."

One of the issues. That's true.

Quote:
"Any restriction on individual rights and liberties must demonstrate a compelling NECESSITY."

And who determines that compelling necessity?

Quote:
"You've not justified how discussing sexual perversion is applicable to this topic."

I'm claiming that homosexuality is a sexual perversion and for that reason people don't consider it a proper basis for marriage.

What do you consider to be my error?

Quote:
"You very much have the legal ability to get married regardless of approval of others, and your marriage (approved of or otherwise will retain all of the rights and privileges that come with it from the state."

I'm not sure who the "you" you're talking about is, but you seem to be saying that same sex couples can legally marry in California. Do you really consider that to be factually true? If so, how can you be shown to be mistaken?

Regards,

Jack

jackowens
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jun, 2010 02:05 am
@Thomas,
Dear Thomas.

In reply to your post of 6/15/10:

Quote:
"How is that different from heterosexual marriages?"

By vote of the citizenry, homosexual marriages are not recognized as valid in California.

Quote:
"The law doesn't care--and neither does it need to care if you marry a man and people disapprove of that marriage."

How is that decided?

Quote:
"1) Would you approve of disqualifying old heterosexuals from marriage, on the grounds that their biology, anatomies, and physiology can no longer serve to perpetuate homo sapiens?"

No because a) they support the institution of marriage, b) still follow the natural order and, I assume, d) may still need an outlet for their reproductive drive if still active.

Quote:
"2) Are you aware that law in the Anglo-Saxon tradition, going back to at least to Blackstone, conceives of marriage as a civil contract?"

No, but if you consider marriage nothing more than a civil contract, I'm not sure what the complaint of Gay Liberation ideologues is. As far as I know homosexual couples can arrange a civil contract or appropriate legislation can be enacted.

And can't pretty much the same can be said of homosexual marriages: under what tradition of law can homosexuals marry?

Quote:
"Beasts are incapable of informed consent, so the law rightfully ignores their preferences, and doesn't let them enter into contracts."

Yes, beasts are incapable but humans aren't. And if a bestialist doesn't find their pet animal's incapacity to be an impediment they can to to some place like http://www.marryyourpet.com and marry.

Would you legally ban such marriages?

Regards,

Jack


joefromchicago
 
  2  
Reply Thu 17 Jun, 2010 08:30 am
@jackowens,
jackowens wrote:
I would have no objection to two people of the same sex marrying in their own private ceremony. They and a certain segment of the population would then consider them married but I and the majority of the population would not. Again, that's what the vote was about.

OK, so you'd be in favor gay marriages as long as they are sham gay marriages.

jackowens wrote:
Quote:
"In other words, if a heterosexual marriage ceremony is a cultural institution, then a gay marriage ceremony that looks an awful lot like a heterosexual marriage ceremony is a cultural institution too."

That doesn't make sense. Are you, joefromchicago, invalidating the vote on Proposition 8 and repealing the law established by the citizenry in that regard?

The law doesn't establish cultural institutions. People don't dress up in tuxes and gowns at weddings because there's some law that says they have to dress up that way. It's just a part of the culture. Likewise, Prop 8 didn't establish any kind of cultural institution, it just mandated that certain marriages wouldn't be legally recognized. Nothing there about culture.

jackowens wrote:
I guess that's a way of expressing what you have in mind, but really my belief, as such, is valid as my belief although it may be wrong, which I admit.

So to find out, let me start with this:

I assume that you think that my belief is false, but do you believe that there are such things as sexual perversions?

"Sexual perversion" is a loaded term. Surely there are some practices that may deviate from the norm on a bell-curve distribution, but I'm not sure if we gain anything by calling those practices "perverted."
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Thu 17 Jun, 2010 02:51 pm
@jackowens,
jackowens wrote:
By vote of the citizenry, homosexual marriages are not recognized as valid in California.

Let me restate my point from a different angle, then: Until 1968, by vote of the citizenry, interracial marriages were not recognized as valid in Virginia. Then the US Supreme Court, applying the 14th amendment, held that the Virginia citizenry didn't have a vote in Mr. and Mrs Loving's choice to marry each other. By analogy, why should California's citizenry have a vote when the marriage is between a Mr. Loving and a Mr. Loving?

jackowens wrote:
Quote:
"The law doesn't care--and neither does it need to care if you marry a man and people disapprove of that marriage."

How is that decided?

By adhering to the due-process and free-exercise clauses of the 14th Amendment.

jackowens wrote:
Quote:
"1) Would you approve of disqualifying old heterosexuals from marriage, on the grounds that their biology, anatomies, and physiology can no longer serve to perpetuate homo sapiens?"

No because a) they support the institution of marriage, b) still follow the natural order and, I assume, d) may still need an outlet for their reproductive drive if still active.

a) How do old heterosexual couples support the institution of marriage in any way that homosexual couples wouldn't? b) exactly how is homosexuality unnatural? A quick Google search will show you that homosexuality abounds in nature. c) What happened to your letter c? Anyway, I'll substitute my own letter c): Under 1968 Virginia mores, interracial marriage may well have been considered a violation of the "natural order". Would you therefore say that Virginia was entitled to criminalize interracial marriage? d) Once a heterosexual couple is too old to reproduce anymore, they no longer have a reproductive drive---just a drive to have sex. This puts them exactly on par with homosexuals.

jackowens wrote:
Quote:
"2) Are you aware that law in the Anglo-Saxon tradition, going back to at least to Blackstone, conceives of marriage as a civil contract?"

No, but if you consider marriage nothing more than a civil contract, I'm not sure what the complaint of Gay Liberation ideologues is. As far as I know homosexual couples can arrange a civil contract or appropriate legislation can be enacted.

So, if civil marriage was abolished for both gay and straight couples, would you be satisfied? It would certainly be fine with me.

jackowens wrote:
And can't pretty much the same can be said of homosexual marriages: under what tradition of law can homosexuals marry?

Under the tradition of law that prohibits discrimination. Granted: as legal traditions go, this is a fairly recent one. Nevertheless, it's an important legal principle.

Quote:
Would you legally ban such marriages?

I would void them because marriages are contracts, and nonhuman animals are unable to enter into contracts of any kind---including marriage.
 

Related Topics

New York New York! - Discussion by jcboy
Prop 8? - Discussion by majikal
Gay Marriage - Discussion by blatham
Gay Marriage -- An Old Post Revisited - Discussion by pavarasra
Who doesn't back gay marriage? - Question by The Pentacle Queen
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/29/2021 at 04:05:17