Gay marriage bill passes in Minnesota

[Ultima Ratio]

So...so predictable. I almost posted in tiny print how long it would take someone to bite on that.

 

We don't punish murder because it is a religious taboo. We punish murder because it threatens the safety of our societal bonds. Ditto stealing. That they happen to also be religious taboos is unrelated. I'm glad most religions agree murder is wrong (mighty nice of them, though that definition has hardly remained well followed by most all of them), but that's not why we punish it. I won't oppose laws that coincide with religious teachings, but I don't want laws based solely on them either.

 

And I've never used religion to argue anything, so what's your point? Why bring it up? Marriage pre-dates organized religion, but religion reinforces it and supports it, correctly so, as it does with many other things in the civil society.

[TheLeviathan]

And I've never used religion to argue anything, so what's your point? .

 

Well...

 

A) I wasn't responding to you. I was responding to Hornhead, who I know from BYTO and I know he will reference religion

 

and

 

Religion is all that's left for most people once their dubious reasoning is exposed. So why not skip the step of exposing it and just get right to the real issue for most? You're welcome to carry on your dubious reasoning though.

[Hornhead]

To continue the pragmatist line of thinking, gay marriage makes sense from a financial standpoint.

 

Married people tend to be more stable. Having a built-in support network, they tend to rely on the state less and give more to it.

 

Also, allowing gay people to marry means there will be more adoptions, given that gay people can't have children on their own without artificial insemination or a surrogate mother. More adopted children means less of a state burden in the foster care system, as there are plenty of children to adopt in this country.

 

All in all, I can't really see a justifiable reason not to allow it.

Your logic is pretty easy to follow. But permitting adoption by same-sex couples can be accomplished without redefining marriage. Why can’t we have agencies that specifically cater to such couples? Interesting side note. Many longstanding religious agencies were taken out of the adoption business because they were forced to adhere to new laws prohibiting discrimination with regard to sexual-orientation. Catholic leaders requested a religious exemption. They were denied and forced to shut their doors or disregard their religious beliefs. In the politicians’ minds, and probably those of most people, better for the children to be orphans than not have a chance of being placed with a same-sex couple. Soon, any anytime marriage is mentioned, you risk being accused of discrimination if same-sex couples are not brought into the conversation. In 2008, e-Harmony was legally forced to create a site that catered to homosexuals or go out of business. How's that for tolerance? Religious beliefs will only come increasingly under attack. We are also saying that gender is interchangeable, basically meaningless. No wonder we are seeing more kids confused about their gender. This is some of the damage I see.

[Ultima Ratio]

A lexical definition from Webster:

 

a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law

That's what it is (what the dictionary provides - at least for lexical definitions) and I've already provided the why it is -- for the sake of children, the natural end of such a union -- in principle (in essence).

 

The what it is (the definition) is the conclusion of the argument whose premises provide the why.

 

You can stipulate a definition for anything, and your wikipedia definition is just that. Now, I'd like to stipulate that orange juice is the delicious drink comprised of lemons, water and sugar.

 

Ah-ha! There is no orange in orange juice!

 

Marriage serves two purposes: To facilitate a stable environment to raise children and to stabilize economic partnerships.

 

Agree. Children will have the best chance if parented by both mother and father who are committed to each other -- but when this does not happen (sadly) they still have a financial obligation. Of course financial security is part and parcel to the well-being of a family.

 

Before there was such a thing as alimony and the State, marriage held fathers accountable, kept them around. And as we know, kids, especially boys, are dramatically more prone to violence, poverty and dependence on the state and continuing this cycle when the father is absent (even if providing financial support).

 

 

• 
  
  • Children in father-absent homes are almost four times more likely to be poor. In 2011, 12 percent of children in married-couple families were living in poverty, compared to 44 percent of children in mother-only families.
    Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Children’s Living Arrangements and Characteristics: March 2011, Table C8. Washington D.C.: 2011.
    
  • In 2008, American poverty rates were 13.2% for the whole population and 19% for children, compared to 28.7% for female-headed households.
    Source: Edin, K. & Kissane R. J. (2010). Poverty and the American family: a decade in review. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 460-479.
    

 

• Father factor in emotional and behavioral problems
  
• Data from three waves of the Fragile Families Study (N= 2,111) was used to examine the prevalence and effects of mothers’ relationship changes between birth and age 3 on their children’s well being. Children born to single mothers show higher levels of aggressive behavior than children born to married mothers. Living in a single-mother household is equivalent to experiencing 5.25 partnership transitions.
  Source: Osborne, C., & McLanahan, S. (2007). Partnership instability and child well-being. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 1065-1083
  
• A sample of 4,027 resident fathers and children from the Fragile Families and Child Well-Being Survey was used to investigate the effects of a biological father’s multipartner fertility (having at least one child with more than one mother) on adolescent health. Resident fathers engaging in multipartner fertility were older, more likely to be White, and had lower education levels and income, compared to fathers with one partner. Results indicated children’s externalizing behaviors were negatively affected directly and indirectly when their biological father had children with multiple partners.
  Source: Bronte-Tinkew, J., Horowitz, A., & Scott, M. E. (2009). Fathering with multiple partners: Links to children’s well-being in early childhood. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71, 608–63
  

 

 

Kids deserve and do better with fathers raising them along with their mothers. This is a fact. There are coping and social skills you get from a mother and different coping and social skills you get from a father. This is well documented.

 

I'd like answers to both of the following:

 

1. Is love a sufficient condition to marry?

 

2. Even if the law changes to give homosexual couples the same legal benefits of marriage, why must the word "marriage" be redefined? Should we care about the legal benefits or the word? Why? Why not call it a civil union as I've already shown that there is an essential difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals with regard to the outcome of their sex -- in principle/essence -- namely, the possibility of children.

 

You've got an awful lot of pretentiousness in your presentation for such a shallow understanding.

 

Do you ever get tire of this?

[howeda7]

I learned so much from this thread. I had no idea that the primary concern with gay marriage was gay brothers and sisters marrying each other! Why did no one bring this up on the Senate or House floor?

 

Seriously, good for MN. I have yet to hear one good reason against it that didn't involve thumping a Bible. The slippery slope fallacy get sillier every day. Massachusetts has had gay marriage for 10 years. Has polygamy been legalized? Have hundreds of gay brothers married? No? Well I'm sure it's coming down the slope any day now...

[Ultima Ratio]

You're welcome to carry on your dubious reasoning though.

 

Do you even want to be taken seriously? If my reasoning is so dubious, you'd do well to expose it and explain why this is so rather than droning on that it is some kind of self-evident truth.

 

Have you wondered why people who used to respond to you no longer do? Insufferable.

[TheLeviathan]

That's what it is (what the dictionary provides - at least for lexical definitions) and I've already provided the why it is -- for the sake of children, the natural end of such a union -- in principle (in essence).

 

So...wait...you're going to argue that the "why" of marriage is based on a premise that is guaranteed of truth? You do understand that your earlier implication that you are using a deductive argument is utterly ridiculous right? Well, I'll say it again, your premise is highly dubious. You can label that definition as who, what, where, how, why, or huh for all I care. It's not any less dubious to claim that procreation is the sole, undisputed reason for marriage and has been across time and cultures. At the very face of it, a claim that broad and that definitive is going to take an extremely thorough explanation of proof. So prove it. A definition is not proof. And in case you try and circumvent backing up your claims, I'll bust your deductive nonsense with all I have to: Romans had same sex marriage. So it has not "always" been this way. (This is, of course, only one of MANY arguments that easily debunk your premise)

 

I'd also argue that marriage was used as a way of gaining political power. Or of gaining financial advantages. Of course procreation has been PART of why marriage has existed, but the central, "principled" reason of it? That's just ridiculous. But by all means. I only need one counter example. I already gave it. Your premise is now in doubt. Ball is in your court. Unless of course you want to jargon-filled rant by Keyes, in which case, please elaborate.

 

Before there was such a thing as alimony and the State, marriage held fathers accountable, kept them around.

 

We don't live then. We live now. Family law creates obligations to progeny. Not marriage laws. You're utterly and completely wrong. The rest of this was an intentional sidetrack/tangent to divert from how completely erroneous your claim was.

 

1. Is love a sufficient condition to marry?

 

I don't even know what that means. I didn't have to check "I truly love her" on my marriage license. Here's a piece of advice - if you can't speak your point clearly, you come off as deliberately obfuscating. This question is completely unclear.

 

As for your second point, I'd rather call all marriages a "civil union". It's a much more accurate definition regardless of the sexes being married.

[TheLeviathan]

Do you even want to be taken seriously? If my reasoning is so dubious, you'd do well to expose it and explain why this is so rather than droning on that it is some kind of self-evident truth.

 

Have you wondered why people who used to respond to you no longer do? Insufferable.

 

I already did. The very notion that the only definition of marriage is "for procreation" is certainly not an undisputed, universally accepted fact. Therefore, your first premise is, by definition, dubious. Romans had gay marriage. So did some areas of China. Some cultures only worried about finances, not procreation.

 

Are you truly sticking by the idea that marriage has never existed, in any culture throughout human history, for any reason but procreation? All I need is one counter-example and I already provided a couple. What is hard to understand about why your claim is now dubious?

[Ultima Ratio]

So you don't understand the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions, but know so much about logic and arguments.

 

1. If it's raining outside, I have my umbrella.

2. I have my umbrella

3. Therefore, it's raining outside.

 

Evaluate the argument, indicating the necessary and sufficient conditions if there are any. I'm sorry, but I feel with must go through this before we can move on because if we can't count to one hundred by tens together, we surely can't do integrations. This coming from the guy who calls me pretentious. Look that word up. Maybe they re/undefined that one for you too.

[biggentleben]

Heck, the first marriage (if you're one of the extremists who wants to call it that, albeit not defined in Biblical literature) was not began with any children in mind. The purpose of that "marriage" was for shared responsibilities in the Garden of Eden, not procreation. Let's jump off the Bible angle because it's simply incorrect if you know your Bible and not the "talking points Bible" commonly used on conservative talk radio and Fox News.

[TheLeviathan]

Hey, I just realized most all Christians should agree with me about there being confused reasons for marriage. Their holy book says this:

 

Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; nI will make him a helper fit for5 him.”

 

So there you go. Why do we have marriage: Because dammit...sandwiches don't make themselves!

 

Edit: Ben beat me too it!

[biggentleben]

Hey, I just realized most all Christians should agree with me about the initial reason for marriage. Their holy book says this:

 

Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; nI will make him a helper fit for5 him.”

 

So there you go. Why do we have marriage: Because dammit...sandwiches don't make themselves!

 

I took this to my better half, and I ended up wearing that sandwich. It was quite tasty, though. Dang that dijon mustard does the trick!

[TheLeviathan]

So you don't understand the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions, but know so much about logic and arguments.

 

You implied your premise that marriage was for procreation was the start of your deductive argument. If I took taht implication wrong...by all means: state your argument clearly. Not some ranting nonsense from Alan Keyes. Let's go back to Brock's question:

 

What, exactly, do you believe?

 

Then, if you'd like, I'll gladly answer this. I don't see a purpose in it if you're going to have a veiled argument you only share snippets of or let someone else talk for you.

[Ultima Ratio]

 

What, exactly, do you believe?

 

 

I thought I'd answered this several times.

 

The onus is on those who wish to change definitions and grant benefits to argue why? I'm trying to get you to do so by asking what the conditions for marriage must be. All I hear is that you should be able to marry whomever you love. Is that it?

[TheLeviathan]

I thought I'd answered this several times.

 

1. No, you first posted something unclear (at best) and a jargon-filled Alan Keyes video. So, no, still waiting. Clarity on your part would be helpful. You continue to imply there is a settled, universally agreed purpose for marriage, but refuse to make that clear and bristle when that claim is placed on you. I don't want to misrepresent you, but you refuse to clarify.

 

2. I haven't said anything about love other than asking for clarification about your confused question and making a snarky comment.

 

3. I already explained my conditions for marriage in response to you. Complete with checks.

[TheLeviathan]

You know what, maybe I missed it. Maybe it's my bad. Can anyone else explain to me what Ultima Ratio's position is? Perhaps I missed the "several times". I'd appreciate the help.

[Hornhead]

I already did. The very notion that the only definition of marriage is "for procreation" is certainly not an undisputed, universally accepted fact. Therefore, your first premise is, by definition, dubious. Romans had gay marriage. So did some areas of China. Some cultures only worried about finances, not procreation.

 

Are you truly sticking by the idea that marriage has never existed, in any culture throughout human history, for any reason but procreation? All I need is one counter-example and I already provided a couple. What is hard to understand about why your claim is now dubious?

I wish folks would de-emphasize the procreation aspect of marriage when there are far better arguments. By this logic the infertile and elderly have no place in marriage. The 4,000+ year definition holds greater sway. Folks like to draw comparisons with slavery and racism as wrongs in history that needed righting, and that same-sex marriage is part of this continuum. While many of history's great moral leaders spoke in favor of free societies and equality among the races, none ever spoke in favor of same-sex marriage. Not until recently has anyone deemed "awful" the belief of marriage as male-female. Do people forget this was Obama's stance just one year ago? Why wasn't he bashed at a small-minded hater?

[TheLeviathan]

I wish folks would de-emphasize the procreation aspect of marriage when there are far better arguments

 

Certainly many Christians make strong arguments against procreation as the reason why. I had a few I was going to post, but figured my sammich line was way better.

 

To your point, I agree there are better reasons than procreation. The problem with your position is it violates a very basic fallacy of appeal to tradition. So Ultima's position (whatever it may be) is at least aware enough to not venture there. It's just another dubious basis for a belief, how much more dubious than Ultima's sort of depends on what his actually is.

[Ultima Ratio]

Levi, this is what you wrote:

Marriage serves two purposes: To facilitate a stable environment to raise children and to stabilize economic partnerships.

 

This is where you say "check". Is this correct? I've already agreed with this and expanded on it further. These are purposes of marriage, not limits -- though yes, I certainly agree that the purposes of marriage do and should inform the definition, the scope and limits to who can enter into a marriage. Of course, for me that means one man, one woman. How about you?

[Ultima Ratio]

I wish folks would de-emphasize the procreation aspect of marriage when there are far better arguments. By this logic the infertile and elderly have no place in marriage.

 

Age is an accident of one's nature. Accidents are things that may be different or change, without changing the essence of that being. For example: the essence (or principle) of the eye is to see. Whether one's eyes are green, grey, or blue are unessential -- or accidental to the eye.

 

The natural coupling of male and female is progeny. That's what is meant by "in principle" -- In principle, a homosexual couple cannot beget children, no matter the accidental age of the couple. I'm don't mean to bludgeon you, horn head, with this distinction, but it is paramount. This distinction was made well-known in Aristotle's metaphysics and since. So if I am too jargony for you or others, it's because I'm accustomed to this language and find it immeasurably helpful in order to avoid making superficial claims. I could certainly go on to explain this in greater detail, but don't wish to 'sound' condescending. If you watched the Keyes video I posted, he uses this language. I posted it because I find opponents less likely to name-call (me anyway) if I can appeal to another source, who makes the point crystal clear in my mind, but again, this may need some unpacking for those unfamiliar with Aristotelean or scholastic terminology.

[Guest USAFChief]

I thought I'd answered this several times.

 

The onus is on those who wish to change definitions and grant benefits to argue why? I'm trying to get you to do so by asking what the conditions for marriage must be. All I hear is that you should be able to marry whomever you love. Is that it?

Here's my argument. Society has seen fit to codify marriage into our government structure, through the granting of rights, privileges and benefits. Society has also drawn the line of that definition at "two consenting adults."

 

Our government is originally codified through our constitution. Our constitution tells us we are all to be treated equally under the law.

 

Therefore, our constitution requires that we either extend the same rights, privileges and benefits to all pairs of consenting adults, or we get the government out of the business of marriage altogether.

 

I'd prefer the former, but I could live with the later. What I can't abide is unequal treatment under the law.

 

The rest pretty much a bunch of hoohah.

[Hornhead]

Certainly many Christians make strong arguments against procreation as the reason why. I had a few I was going to post, but figured my sammich line was way better.

 

To your point, I agree there are better reasons than procreation. The problem with your position is it violates a very basic fallacy of appeal to tradition. So Ultima's position (whatever it may be) is at least aware enough to not venture there. It's just another dubious basis for a belief, how much more dubious than Ultima's sort of depends on what his actually is.

I've never heard of appeal to tradition as a basic fallacy. I recall asking on the previous board to what you appeal. I believe the answer was . . . your heart. A society consisting of each doing what is right in his own eyes will not stand. We are not talking about reliance on a family tradition of eating tofurkey on Thanksgiving. This is a total disregard of all religious AND secular tradition throughout human history. That's a pretty big deal just so a tiny fraction of the population can obtain rights that can easily be granted to a same-sex couples without redefining marriage.

[Ultima Ratio]

Here's my argument. Society has seen fit to codify marriage into our government structure, through the granting of rights, privileges and benefits. Society has also drawn the line of that definition at "two consenting adults."

 

Our government is originally codified through our constitution. Our constitution tells us we are all to be treated equally under the law.

 

Therefore, our constitution requires that we either extend the same rights, privileges and benefits to all pairs of consenting adults, or we get the government out of the business of marriage altogether.

 

I'd prefer the former, but I could live with the later. What I can't abide is unequal treatment under the law.

 

The rest pretty much a bunch of hoohah.

 

Very good. I've discussed these two horns of the dillemma with colleagues, and just stipulating that the court decides there is an equal protection issue, I'd would support the latter horn, but prefer to let the states decide, again, unless it is decided that equal protection must supersede the 10th amendment. Of course I don't agree that this amounts to an equal protection issue. If so, when did it become discriminatory? I would also prefer to get government out of marriage altogether to avoid the inevitable cases to come, that folks love to ridicule, but will come nonetheless -- that plural marriage would also be found as violating equal protection rights. If marriage is arbitrary, the number of married is wildly arbitrary IMO. It takes a village after all.

[Ultima Ratio]

I've never heard of appeal to tradition as a basic fallacy.

It's not, just inconvenient for some.

[mikecgrimes]

Why fight it, just say you are a Republican. Anything of substance the movement brought to the table has been co-opted and corrupted by the party already.

 

I'm not a Republican, have you seen the last two candidates the Republicans put up for president? I have voted Republican for president or governor exactly one time in my life. If Rand Paul is the Republican nominee in 2016 I will vote Republican again. If not good luck to them, and enjoy another loss.

[Brock Beauchamp]

*Bump

 

You can get cute with bumping that all you want but Keye's argument was entirely non-sensical. Listen to the actual content instead of the big words he's throwing around for effect. It's a circular argument and is completely devoid of substance.

[TheLeviathan]

I've never heard of appeal to tradition as a basic fallacy. I recall asking on the previous board to what you appeal. I believe the answer was . . . your heart..

 

Yes, appeal to tradition is a basic fallacy. Google will prove this to you if nothing else. "Because something has always happened" is not reason/logic. You can value that if you want, but then you have divorced yourself from a discussion of reason.

 

I never said I appeal to my heart - I appeal to reason.

[TheLeviathan]

This is where you say "check". Is this correct?

 

So now I clarify for a third time and the best I've gotten from you is a grainy Alan Keyes video. At best, this is bad form. At worst, trolling. I'll ask again - could you please just clarify YOUR position. It does make it a bit easier to have a discussion.

 

Of course, for me that means one man, one woman. How about you?

 

When I talk about the "what" of marriage, you turn it to "why" and when we talk about the "why" of marriage, you talk about the "what".

 

Here, I'll lead by example and yet again (ACTUALLY) share my opinion. Marriage is a social contract that a society grants to members to facilitate the raising of children and the partnering of economics for stability. It comes with obligations and privileges pursuant to that.

 

See. Not so hard. Now you try. No Alan Keyes videos please. I have interpreted you in the past as saying you believe the definition of marriage is inherently about procreation and have offered up many counter examples. The truth is, you have defined the definition in such a way that makes it "in principle" about procreation and the only proof you have for that is your own definition. That is circular.

 

"Marriage" is a legal construct and a term that has been denoted and used in many ways in many cultures. To use it in the same way as "the nature of fish is to have gills" is just asinine.

[TheLeviathan]

You can get cute with bumping that all you want but Keye's argument was entirely non-sensical. Listen to the actual content instead of the big words he's throwing around for effect. It's a circular argument and is completely devoid of substance.

 

Yeah, last I checked having a premise and a conclusion match is circular.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Yeah, last I checked having a premise and a conclusion match is circular.

 

Yep. Let's not confuse substance with verbosity.

 

Decartes may have been a very smart man and may have had some good points in his meditations but that doesn't mean they weren't circular and that the main premise was lacking in substance because of it.