reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
Post by reynoldbot on Jun 18, 2007 16:05:11 GMT -4
Please elaborate why or why not in the message board.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Jun 18, 2007 16:21:57 GMT -4
Modern democracy is based on the premise that all citizens should be afforded freedom and equality of opportunity. There doesn't seem to be any compelling reason why one group of citizens should be denied an opportunity made available (and often encouraged) for others.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jun 18, 2007 16:45:42 GMT -4
Yes, because I can't think of any good reason why they shouldn't be allowed to marry. No one should have the right to determine how other people live their private lives. It is between two consenting adults, therefore it hurts no one.
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
Post by reynoldbot on Jun 18, 2007 17:03:24 GMT -4
Marriage is a declaration of love between two consenting adults and a commitment to the bond they share. Love is not bound to a single system of sexual preferences. Why should the right to marry be constrained to heterosexuals when love can be enjoyed so much more universally?
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
Post by reynoldbot on Jun 18, 2007 17:48:21 GMT -4
strange that the two "no" votes so far chose not to elaborate their feelings in the message board.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 18, 2007 18:00:10 GMT -4
No, they should not.
From a strictly secular standpoint: Marriage is a public and legal relationship, not a strictly private one. Therefore it's a fallacy to say that state recognition or denial of a marriage is unwarranted interference in private lives. The primary puropse for the state in granting legal recognition to marriage is to recognize the biological children produced by a marriage for the purposes of inheritence and family laws. Obviously there are no biological children of both parents of a homosexual marriage, therefore the primary purpose of legal recognition is not relevent to a homosexual relationship.
From a religious standpoint: Homosexual relationships are forbidden in the Jewish, Christian, and Muslim traditions as immoral. Having the state force recognition of a relationship a religious group considers immoral is exactly the sort of abuse the 1st ammendment was written to prevent. Government sanction of a behavior cannot help but make it more prevelent, and if it is immoral behavior then it is immoral to allow it to be promoted.
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
Post by reynoldbot on Jun 18, 2007 18:08:21 GMT -4
what about straight couples who do not plan to have children or are unable to have children? By your definition they also do not have the right to be married!
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
Post by reynoldbot on Jun 18, 2007 18:09:43 GMT -4
I completely disagree that the primary function of a marriage is to produce children.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 18, 2007 18:25:06 GMT -4
I said the reason for government recognition of marriage was for the sake of the children, not that the production of children is the only reason for marriage.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jun 18, 2007 18:52:30 GMT -4
Modern democracy is based on the premise that all citizens should be afforded freedom and equality of opportunity. There doesn't seem to be any compelling reason why one group of citizens should be denied an opportunity made available (and often encouraged) for others.Yes, because I can't think of any good reason why they shouldn't be allowed to marry. No one should have the right to determine how other people live their private lives. It is between two consenting adults, therefore it hurts no one.Marriage is a declaration of love between two consenting adults and a commitment to the bond they share. Love is not bound to a single system of sexual preferences. Why should the right to marry be constrained to heterosexuals when love can be enjoyed so much more universally?I completely disagree that the primary function of a marriage is to produce children.Just to really play troll and throw the cat amongst the pigeons. Do you realise that exactly the same argument works for why Siblings should be allowed to marry...... btw, I haven't voted and don't plan too.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Jun 18, 2007 19:06:03 GMT -4
Obviously there are no biological children of both parents of a homosexual marriage, therefore the primary purpose of legal recognition is not relevent to a homosexual relationship. This may change as technology becomes even more of a recognised part of human reproductive strategy. In any case, what was the primary purpose was never the only purpose, and is under no necessary compulsion to remain primary, or even relevant. Conversely, imposing what one religion considers moral behaviour on those of other religions or no religious persuasion at all skates rather close to making a law concerning the establishment of religion. The constitution was intended as much to prevent religious interference in state and private affairs as vice versa.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Jun 18, 2007 19:08:40 GMT -4
Do you realise that exactly the same argument works for why Siblings should be allowed to marry...... Historically, for some classes, sibling or close relative marriage was mandatory
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jun 18, 2007 22:34:55 GMT -4
I vote yes. Of course. Why not. Seems right to me. And so far I haven't heard anyone convince me otherwise.
The primary purpose for the state in granting legal recognition to marriage is to recognize the biological children produced by a marriage for the purposes of inheritence and family laws. Really? What country do you live in? What about tax laws? Sometimes the state needs to change its laws or rethink its 'purpose'.
Obviously there are no biological children of both parents of a homosexual marriage, therefore the primary purpose of legal recognition is not relevent to a homosexual relationship.
Many married couples do not have biological children. Some adopt, some don't want children, some aren't able to have children and choose not to adopt. Some homosexual couples want to adopt, but aren't able to because they are not 'married'.
From a religious standpoint: Homosexual relationships are forbidden in the Jewish, Christian, and Muslim traditions as immoral. Having the state force recognition of a relationship a religious group considers immoral is exactly the sort of abuse the 1st ammendment was written to prevent. Government sanction of a behavior cannot help but make it more prevelent, and if it is immoral behavior then it is immoral to allow it to be promoted.
We don't have the 1st amendment in Canada. We have the Charter of Rights. Many things in the U.S. have unofficial sanction that some religious groups would consider immoral. For example you can listen to Marilyn Manson and others but he's not exactly accepted by many Christians there. You can go to a nude beach, view pornography legally, read the Satanic Bible, criticize Fundamentalists, eat pork, create erotic art, etc. etc. etc.
I say live and let live.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 18, 2007 22:47:25 GMT -4
strange that the two "no" votes so far chose not to elaborate their feelings in the message board. You only gave me a couple hours to spot the thread and reply. Frankly I'm surprised that someone else voted "no" too.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jun 18, 2007 23:38:58 GMT -4
Do you realise that exactly the same argument works for why Siblings should be allowed to marry...... Historically, for some classes, sibling or close relative marriage was mandatory That's because they are reptiles. ;P
|
|