Subject:
|
Re: Git outta my bedroom!!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 12 Jun 2003 19:14:44 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
207 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2982596.stm
> >
> > Yes this is a thing about Canada... so don't worry 'bout it...
>
>
> > Devalued the institution of marriage? What, by letting caring loving couples
> > partake in the institution of marriage? Or would Mr Rogusky prefer a ban on
> > marriages he doesn't approve of? Stay out of their marriages, Derek, and
> > they'll stay outta yours.
>
> The institution of marriage is devalued, and here is how.
Secularly speaking, I don't know that there's a problem with devaluing
marriage. If there is one, I'd like to hear it articulated without appealing to
provincial wisdom or religious values. As a matter of secular law, marriage is
a contract, plain and simple. As a matter of secular law, there *should* be no
inviolable, sacrosanct institutions. I recognize that marriage is also a
religious, spiritual, cultural, and interpersonal commitment, but that's
absolutely separate from secular law, which is the issue in this case. If a
church wishes to outlaw same-sex marriages among its flock, that is the church's
right, but the church has no right to interfere with the legal contract of
marriage as it applies to secular law.
> If you allow same-
> sex marriages (remember, this isn't a ban on homosexual marriages), then you
> open pandora's box WRT to marriage. What about three people who want to get
> married? How about 4? If you object to those scenarios, on what basis would
> you argue? What about if I want to marry my dog? Are you then going to
> discriminate against me? Pretty soon the institution becomes meaningless.
I'm not sure where to start with this bit of Santorumesque slippery-slope
reasoning, but there are a number of flaws.
First of all, marriage is a contract. The number of parties involved is
usually two, but I don't know why it *has* to be two. Why not let ten or twelve
people marry one another? If society so chooses, then society doesn't even need
to recognize, in terms of taxation, more than two members of a marriage
contract, or it could set caps on marriage-related tax deductions, so that no
individual can claim more deductions than are allowed to a single married person
under current tax law. Is there a definable, secular reason why polygamous
marriage should be forbidden?
Secondly, if you want to marry your dog, that's your business. However, the
dog is not a legally-recognized party competent to enter a contract, so your
effort would fail on those grounds. You can still maintain (or attempt to
maintain) a relationship with your dog otherwise equivalent to a marriage, but
society is under no legal obligation to recognize it as a contract.
Thirdly, the type of reasoning you're employing is exactly the same as the
pseudo-logical arguments offered by people against so-called "inter-racial"
marriages, a la Bob Jones University. At issue is the question of where one
draws the lines between "acceptable" and "unacceptable" contract parties. I see
no reason why two men who love each other should not be allowed to wed. I don't
even care if they really love each other, as long as no one is demonstrably
harmed by their marriage. What business is it of mine? Or yours? Or
society's?
Do you also oppose legally-recognized civil unions for same-sex couples? If
not, then why not? And if so, then why? It's not a marriage, after all, so it
doesn't devalue the "institution" of marriage at all.
> This is an example of one of my pet peeves-- legislation from the bench. The
> liberals know that the GP would never go for this in any sort of vote, so
> they simply create law through judicial fiat.
Conservatives are equally guilty of this, and if Estrada and Pryor get to the
bench, we'll see how hands-off their judicial legislation policies really are.
If the democratically-elected representative pass an unconstitutional piece of
legislation in the US, then the Supreme Court is obliged to throw out that
legislation. Far from legislating from the bench, the judiciary in such a case
is preserving the law!
Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Git outta my bedroom!!
|
| (...) The institution of marriage is devalued, and here is how. If you allow same-sex marriages (remember, this isn't a ban on homosexual marriages), then you open pandora's box WRT to marriage. What about three people who want to get married? How (...) (21 years ago, 12-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
6 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
