Democratic chairman Howard Dean: "marriage is between a man and a woman"

"Where children are not involved, give me a compelling non religious argument against homosexual marriage...."

the hayekian argument would be that marriage is an institution that evolved to a special status (it was not an ad hoc creation. it was an evolved institution that evolved in most societies, even those that were independant and had no contact. it is one of the near universal social networking aspects in nearly every society on earth), and that there is no compelling reason to extend the definition of marriage to something that has never in the history of mankind been considered marriage before - same sex couplings. plenty of successful societies HAVE had polygamy, btw. polygamy is not a NEW definition for marriage. it is not a fundamental redefinition. gay marriage is. just because polygamists don';t have as powerful or numerous a lobbying coalition doesn't mean that polygamy is LESS justified.

you have to seperate policy issues also from constitutional issues.


"No, and the argument that if we allow homosexuals to marry, tthen we have to allow polygamy, men marrying farm animals, "

you are conflating consititutional Equal Protection Clause arguments, with policy arguments

these are two totally different issues.

the issue # 1
1)does the EPC mean that anti-gay marriage law are unconstitional

and issue #2

2) should promoting gay marriage (even accepting that a gay "marriage" is in fact - a marriage to the same status as heterosexual marriage be made as a matter of POLICY

two TOTALLY different issues, zzz... imo, *if* gay marriage is found to be constitutionally protected (iow, not a policy argument, but an EPC argument), then even if polygamy is a bad idea, policywise (and im not saying it is) it deserves the EQUAL PROTECTION under law that gay marriage does. that is *if* one accepts that EPC compels legitimization of gay marriage

one can be against gay marriage, but believe that gay marriage is constitutionally protected under EPC. one can be against gay marriage, but believe that as a policy issue - it should be allowed. one can be FOR gay marriage, but beleive that it is NOT a consitutionally protected right under EPC

these are very different issues. for example, i strongly believe that mj should be decriminalized. that's apolicy issue. i do not believe the constitution MAKES anti-mj laws unconstitutional.
 
I asked you to give me an argument.

Hayek is not here to defend himself and his argument.

If you want to make an argument, that's fine.

Simply stated, slavery was a long standing tradition too, much longer than freedom, much longer than democracy...and we evolved out of that, to an understanding that slavery denied basic human rights.

So, give me a very practical reason why we should deny the right of marriage, and all that it provides, to a gay couple where children are not involved.

Oh, and polygamy has been around along time, just ask the Arabs....

Quote from whitster:

"Where children are not involved, give me a compelling non religious argument against homosexual marriage...."

the hayekian argument would be that marriage is an institution that evolved to a special status (it was not an ad hoc creation. it was an evolved institution that evolved in most societies, even those that were independant and had no contact. it is one of the near universal social networking aspects in nearly every society on earth), and that there is no compelling reason to extend the definition of marriage to something that has never in the history of mankind been considered marriage before - same sex couplings. plenty of successful societies HAVE had polygamy, btw. polygamy is not a NEW definition for marriage. it is not a fundamental redefinition. gay marriage is. just because polygamists don';t have as powerful or numerous a lobbying coalition doesn't mean that polygamy is LESS justified.

you have to seperate policy issues also from constitutional issues.


"No, and the argument that if we allow homosexuals to marry, tthen we have to allow polygamy, men marrying farm animals, "

you are conflating consititutional Equal Protection Clause arguments, with policy arguments

these are two totally different issues.

the issue # 1
1)does the EPC mean that anti-gay marriage law are unconstitional

and issue #2

2) should promoting gay marriage (even accepting that a gay "marriage" is in fact - a marriage to the same status as heterosexual marriage be made as a matter of POLICY

two TOTALLY different issues, zzz... imo, *if* gay marriage is found to be constitutionally protected (iow, not a policy argument, but an EPC argument), then even if polygamy is a bad idea, policywise (and im not saying it is) it deserves the EQUAL PROTECTION under law that gay marriage does. that is *if* one accepts that EPC compels legitimization of gay marriage

one can be against gay marriage, but believe that gay marriage is constitutionally protected under EPC. one can be against gay marriage, but believe that as a policy issue - it should be allowed. one can be FOR gay marriage, but beleive that it is NOT a consitutionally protected right under EPC

these are very different issues. for example, i strongly believe that mj should be decriminalized. that's apolicy issue. i do not believe the constitution MAKES anti-mj laws unconstitutional.
More...
 
one argument (and hayek never argued against gay marriage btw. i am saying that is a hayekian argument) against gay marriage, zzz is that there is no compelling reason to redefine marriage to include same sex couplings

you asked for a reason that was independant of religion, and that is one argument that is independant of religion

the argument is that if you are going to redefine an institution, you need a compelling reason. and that no such compelling reason has presented itself
 
and i DID say that polygamy has been around a long time. i agree. polygamy is not a fundamental redefinition of marriage. that is tangential to whether it is a smart policy move to endorse polygamy

gay "marriage" is a fundamental redefinition of marriage
 
The compelling reason is that gays want to marry, and no legitimate reason has been given for them not to if children are not involved.

Simply stating that it wasn't done before, is similar to saying a white man never married a black woman, so we should allow it....

In America, a black man marrying a white woman was considered, at one time, a redefinition of the institution of marriage....

Quote from whitster:

one argument (and hayek never argued against gay marriage btw. i am saying that is a hayekian argument) against gay marriage, zzz is that there is no compelling reason to redefine marriage to include same sex couplings

you asked for a reason that was independant of religion, and that is one argument that is independant of religion

the argument is that if you are going to redefine an institution, you need a compelling reason. and that no such compelling reason has presented itself
More...
 
a black man marrying a white woman is not a fundamental redefintion of marriage , zzz...

there is immense historical support for intraracial marriage

for centuries, intraracial marriages were exceedingly common in some of largest empires on earth

in fact, many societies encouraged intraracial marriage as a key to keeping assimilated/conquered peoples as contributing members of society

again, i presented a non-religious argument. i didn;'t say i agree with it

but saying that gay people (some do ) WANT to get married is not a "compelling" reason by any reasonable metric

again, the argument is that since gay marriage is a fundamental redefinition of marriage, there needs to be a compelling reason for it

"because gay people want it" does not fall under "compelling definition.

and of course many gay people do want it. some don't
 
Show me any law that requires your interpretation of what is a "compelling" reason sufficient to deny gays the right to marry, where children are not involved.

It all comes down to harm to society on a very practical level.

Show what harm will come to non gays via the marriage of gays. Show how this will disrupt society, how it will damage the current institution of marriage.

Just because something has been an institution, is in and of itself insufficient logically to stand in the way or change, especially when such institutions stand in the way of people finding love and happiness.

Gay people have been living together for a long time, and whether or not they held the status of married means squat on a practical level.

This is just prejudice, ignorance and bias that prevents a change in the concept of marriage, where children are not involved, and in many cases, children have a much better chance of a better life with two monogamous gays who love each other and love the children, than a child living with parents who beat them, and cheat on their spouse.

It is the quality of life, or family life that matters, not some stupid antiquated definition of marriage or union.

This fixation of tradition for tradition sake, where no harm has been show to modify the term marriage is what the regressive party is all about....

Society stands to gain much more than it may lose by learning tolerance and acceptance of alternative lifestyles, when those lifestyles are not a threat to the current status of marriage or society as a whole.

Equal rights means equal for everyone, not just heterosexuals.

Quote from whitster:

a black man marrying a white woman is not a fundamental redefintion of marriage , zzz...

there is immense historical support for intraracial marriage

for centuries, intraracial marriages were exceedingly common in some of largest empires on earth

in fact, many societies encouraged intraracial marriage as a key to keeping assimilated/conquered peoples as contributing members of society

again, i presented a non-religious argument. i didn;'t say i agree with it

but saying that gay people (some do ) WANT to get married is not a "compelling" reason by any reasonable metric

again, the argument is that since gay marriage is a fundamental redefinition of marriage, there needs to be a compelling reason for it

"because gay people want it" does not fall under "compelling definition.

and of course many gay people do want it. some don't
More...
 
is it even possible for u to have a normal discussion without resorting to the common rhetorical ploys, not to mention the usual name calling e.g. "bigots" etc.?

as to your last sentence, that is the EPC argument, not the policy argument, which is debatabl either way, but completely tangential to the policy argument

my point was not whether or not gay marriage was a good or bad thing, or constitutionally required. my point was that there were and are numerous arguments for and against gay marriage that have nothing whatsoever to do with religion. i presented one. that was my point. fwiw, there are plenty of deeply religious people who are for gay marriage, and plenty who aren't

and that, despite your rhetoric it is not simply a matter of ignorance or bias.

even AMONGST gays, there is disagreement about whether gay marriage is a good thing, and/or a constitutional requirement. if u check out some back issues of the Village Voice, and The Advocate (both periodicals with strong ties to the gay rights community), there was vociferous disagreement WITHIN the (so called) gay community as to whether gay marriage :'rights' were even desirable.

if u can get past your name calling and discuss real issues that would be nice

tradition does matter, especially evolved institutions (vs. ad hoc created ones). the hayekian/burke'an idea is that these evolved institutions have intrinsic knowledge that is not so easily discounted by the "if it feels good it's ok" principle

if whomever loves each other should be able to marry, then clearly u must support polygamy and u must support incest between people who cannot give birth (otherwise genetic arguments apply)

for example, two adult age brothers can love each other and want to get married. should they be able to? if not, why?

seriously. why not?

and the reason i used the term 'compelling" is that this is the term used in many constitutional law issues that surround all sorts of discrimination cases.



-----
Show me any law that requires your interpretation of what is a "compelling" reason sufficient to deny gays the right to marry, where children are not involved.

It all comes down to harm to society on a very practical level.

Show what harm will come to non gays via the marriage of gays. Show how this will disrupt society, how it will damage the current institution of marriage.

Just because something has been an institution, is in and of itself insufficient logically to stand in the way or change, especially when such institutions stand in the way of people finding love and happiness.

Gay people have been living together for a long time, and whether or not they held the status of married means squat on a practical level.

This is just prejudice, ignorance and bias that prevents a change in the concept of marriage, where children are not involved, and in many cases, children have a much better chance of a better life with two monogamous gays who love each other and love the children, than a child living with parents who beat them, and cheat on their spouse.

It is the quality of life, or family life that matters, not some stupid antiquated definition of marriage or union.

This fixation of tradition for tradition sake, where no harm has been show to modify the term marriage is what the regressive party is all about....

Society stands to gain much more than it may lose by learning tolerance and acceptance of alternative lifestyles, when those lifestyles are not a threat to the current status of marriage or society as a whole.

Equal rights means equal for everyone, not just heterosexuals.
 
Quote from whitster:
More...

tradition does matter, especially evolved institutions (vs. ad hoc created ones). the hayekian/burke'an idea is that these evolved institutions have intrinsic knowledge that is not so easily discounted by the "if it feels good it's ok" principle

Tradition doesn't matter, only traditionalists make this claim.

If tradition mattered, we would still have slaves, voting for white land owners, etc.

if whomever loves each other should be able to marry, then clearly u must support polygamy and u must support incest between people who cannot give birth (otherwise genetic arguments apply)

I have no problem with any of the above, as long as children are not involved.

Consenting adults, who are not harming anyone by what form their love takes, why would I object?

for example, two adult age brothers can love each other and want to get married. should they be able to? if not, why?

No reason that I can see if they want to be married, that is their right as human beings in my opinion.

All this talk about the institution of marriage is so full of crap when we fully examine the current state of marriage in America.

Over 50% of marraiges fail, overy 75% of spouses cheat on each other, the degree of alcohol abuse, drug abuse, presceptions anti depressants used by married people, cases of domestic abuse, etc. while in marriages doesn't indicate to me that the form of the instution of marriages means anything necessarily.

What I think gay marriage does, is force people to look at the real value of marriage, which is something that most people don't really want to do.

The insitution of marriage as we knew in the past, is not what we see today, and it is not the gays that are to blame, or the cause of the failure of the institution of marriage.

and the reason i used the term 'compelling" is that this is the term used in many constitutional law issues that surround all sorts of discrimination cases.

If tradition is the only compelling argument, the fact that we see such failure in marriages shows the tradition is a failed one...and there is no reason to be dogmatic about an old institution that is riddled with problems.

Sociologically speaking, the right thing to do is to allow the states to decide at first, or even the local municipalities.

Say they make it legal on San Francisco for gay marriage.

What can we do then?

We can gather data. We can see what happens over time. Divorce rates, domestic abuse, if children are involved, what is the impact on the children etc.

By looking at factual data we could then perhaps make a comparison of the pro and con of gay marriage.

Anything less is just plain prejudice, when you have gays that want to be married, and can meet all the contractual requirements beyond a chromosomal difference....

I believe strongly the desire by heterosexuals or homosexuals to block gay marriage goes against the fundamental principle of live and let live, as it it looking at men and women by gender first, and their humanity second.....

When you put the humanity first, it really doesn't matter if a married couple are gay, straight, brother and brother, father and son, etc.

Love of another being, is so far beyond age, sex, etc. that it is irrelevant, on a profound human and spiritual level....

Sex is such a small part of marriage, as most sucessfully married people know. Something that married people do a few hours a week is hardly the real meaning of marriage...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top