More seriously, your challenge to find any reason for objecting to same sex marriage that does not come from some bigoted view based on outdated morals had me pause to consider if there is, indeed, any such reason to be found.
I've been looking for such reasons for a number of years now, and have failed to find any. Of course, this may be because I'm blinded by my own ideology, or it may simply indicate that I'm not as smart and creative as I think I am.
I can think of a number of reasons that would be compelling in other societies. For example, if a too-low birth rate is an issue, then any practices that would take potential breeders out of the group would arguably be a bad thing. My understanding is that this was the case for much of the Bronze Age both because society needed the soldiers to stave off other tribes, and because families needed the labor to support themselves.
Of course, I wouldn't like to live in a society where breeding and childrearing were an individual mandate, and I'm fortunate not to. I don't need children to support me in my old age as I have a retirement account, and the rivalry with the neighboring tribe rarely gets off the athletic field. There are some people whose view on tribalism differs from mine -- "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children" is the same Bronze Age argument moved into 21st century neoNazis -- but those views are not only not mine, but they're also based in bigotry, so they don't really count as a counterexample.
|
More seriously, your challenge to find any reason for objecting to same sex marriage that does not come from some bigoted view based on outdated morals had me pause to consider if there is, indeed, any such reason to be found.I've been looking for such reasons for a number of years now, and have failed to find any. Of course, this may be because I'm blinded by my own ideology, or it may simply indicate that I'm not as smart and creative as I think I am.
I can think of a number of reasons that would be compelling in other societies. For example, if a too-low birth rate is an issue, then any practices that would take potential breeders out of the group would arguably be a bad thing. My understanding is that this was the case for much of the Bronze Age both because society needed the soldiers to stave off other tribes, and because families needed the labor to support themselves.
Of course, I wouldn't like to live in a society where breeding and childrearing were an individual mandate, and I'm fortunate not to. I don't need children to support me in my old age as I have a retirement account, and the rivalry with the neighboring tribe rarely gets off the athletic field. There are some people whose view on tribalism differs from mine -- "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children" is the same Bronze Age argument moved into 21st century neoNazis -- but those views are not only not mine, but they're also based in bigotry, so they don't really count as a counterexample.
not only are they based on bigotry but they also don't make much sense as a justification to oppose same sex marriage even if you accept the baseline assumption that your tribe needs to grow as much as possible to stiffen future generations or whatnot, there's still the issue of homosexuality not shown to have correlation with race. So allow same sex marriage and you get the same % of of people from each tribe who choose to do it, thus none of them "looses out" from the deal. If you mean in an international scope rather than a demographic scope within your own country, well... the west has no hope to win this kind of competition anyway. Arabs and Indians reproduce faster than Europeans and Americans and that's not going to be impacted severely by allowing same sex couples to marry.
Additionally same sex couples could adopt children which would have otherwise have grown in an orphanage, which gives those children much better hope of being productive members of society rather than a liability. It's hard to quantify that against the "numerical advantage" of making new ones but it's a tradeoff rather than a net loss.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On the original question, I'd say that "Because God said so", is not inherently a bigoted reason, though it often serves as cover for bigotry. It is also not a reason that should be allowed, in our system of government, to have any affect on the law.
This begs for a more careful definition of bigotry, I think. The religious stance on the matter is slightly more than "God said same sex married should not be legal". It is, in fact, that homosexuality in itself is nothing less than an "abomination".
And so, according to modern values, if God indeed said so, then God holds a bigoted view. It doesn't matter if someone takes the word of their God as the source of morality, it is fair to judge that source of morality according to contemporary perceptions, which can find the source itself unacceptable.
Or, in other words, the opinion "I think homosexuality is an abomination because someone said so" sounds like a bigoted justification to me, and it doesn't matter if that someone is Donald Trump or the Christian God. The opinion is the same one.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, but avoiding to the same source we're going to hell for wearing cotton-polyester blends.
Which proves that even a stopped clock can be right twice a day.
Yeah, but avoiding to the same source we're going to hell for wearing cotton-polyester blends.
Reading that part figuratively is how they justified the ban on interracial marriage.
It WAS figurative though.. but with jews and anyone else.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, but avoiding to the same source we're going to hell for wearing cotton-polyester blends.Reading that part figuratively is how they justified the ban on interracial marriage.
There were also arguments along the lines that from the patriarchs' narrative they knew that Yahweh created separate types of people and separated them. They might all be human (though a minority of proslavery authors clearly thought in species terms and didn't see black people as human, the argument against them was essentially that it was unbiblical) but that didn't mean they should mix. The sin of Ham (actually Canaan, but they mostly thought it was Ham for some reason I don't know) and all that applied.
The peopling the world narratives do play into that kind of thing. They don't have the familiar racial categories, but they are very much in the vein of "these people are descended from this inferior ancestor and therefore we're better". The people in question happened to map really well to the political situation in the Levant at time of writing. In fact, that's one way we date them. :)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Homosexuality in and of itself is not an abomination. The act itself, it is argued, is against the Natural Law since the sexual act of two same sex people cannot bring forth life.
Of course, I do a lot of things that cannot bring forth life. Watching TV, riding a bicycle, reading a book, cooking dinner, role-playing, washing clothes, petting a cat, mowing the lawn, writing a letter, making a telephone call to my friends -- none of those can bring forth life. Maybe if I plant something in the garden? I think I almost certainly do more things that cannot bring forth life than that things that can....
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The act itself, it is argued, is against the Natural Law since the sexual act of two same sex people cannot bring forth life.
Yeah, that's why the Catholics are so anti-condom. And we can see how well that's working out in Africa.
"Natural Law" being code-speak for "Any random stuff Catholics (or whatever other church-y folks) try to convince you is true."
Money is intended, according to the Natural Law, to bring me beer!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Homosexuality in and of itself is not an abomination. The act itself, it is argued, is against the Natural Law since the sexual act of two same sex people cannot bring forth life.
Natural law is completely vacuous as an argument.
Natural law means 1 of two things. Either "nature does it this way" or "I don't like it therefore its bad"
The first is not only a specific logical fallacy its not even true. Lots of animals including doll sheep, geraffs, dogs, and most of our primate cousins will do the horizontal polka with members of the same sex. (and in the later case, the horizontal polka, the vertical polka, the inclined polka, the times sign polka, the division sign polka...)
Lots of things in nature are horrifyingly evil. Lots of things in nature are beautifully good. Holding nature as a form of morality is thus rather silly.
The second is entirely circular. You don't like it so its not natural law, therefore you like it because its unnatural. Its a standard appealing to itself, not something objective, rational, or sensible.
Yes, but the sexual act
Wait... there's only one? I must really be breaking new ground, because I can think of quite a number -- most of which don't "bring forth life."
Yes, but the sexual act is intended, according to the Natural Law, to bring forth life.
then how do you explain my friends very bisexual dog? Or those horny bonobos? Or hell, black swans?
Which means it's nonsense of course, but a different type of nonsense.
Which means its nonsense harder to prove, since the universe doesn't correct errors in moral understanding but it will often correct physical ones... painfully.
And they wonder why I hate philosophy...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not to trigger any druids looking on, but "Natural Law" is actually pretty terrible. If we followed Natural Law, we'd be driven by only two things: Procreation and survival. Which really is the opposite of what marriage-driven Catholics should want.
As human beings, we rose above the "two goals" long ago. That's why we have the patience for religions, morals, and ethics. Two guys having sex won't make a baby. Neither will you helping that old woman cross the street. I know there are some biological incentives for altruism, but anyone can see that there's a place where those incentives fade and we're just doing good or ethical things because they feel right. And it's not natural. Nature is neither moral nor ethical. Nature is actually kind of a dick.
I dunno, I guess I just have trouble taking "Natural Law" seriously. Have you seen nature? Nasty place to live in. There's a reason we invented houses.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Homosexuality in and of itself is not an abomination. The act itself, it is argued, is against the Natural Law since the sexual act of two same sex people cannot bring forth life.
And yet, all those opposite-sex couples who choose not to have kids or can't have kids have been getting married anyway. {eye roll}
Oh wait, how about this:
That is not to say the right to marry is less meaningful for those who do not or cannot have children. An ability, desire, or promise to procreate is not and has not been a prerequisite for a valid marriage in any State. In light of precedent protecting the right of a married couple not to procreate, it cannot be said the Court or the States have conditioned the right to marry on the capacity or commitment to procreate. The constitutional marriage right has many aspects, of which childbearing is only one.
Oh noes, that was written by the Roman Catholic Anthony Kennedy.
Well, killing is amoral, too.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, killing is amoral, too.
You can have my touch attack when you pry it from my cold dead hands.
|
|
Homosexuality in and of itself is not an abomination. The act itself, it is argued, is against the Natural Law since the sexual act of two same sex people cannot bring forth life.Of course, I do a lot of things that cannot bring forth life. Watching TV, riding a bicycle, reading a book, cooking dinner, role-playing, washing clothes, petting a cat, mowing the lawn, writing a letter, making a telephone call to my friends -- none of those can bring forth life. Maybe if I plant something in the garden? I think I almost certainly do more things that cannot bring forth life than that things that can....
You gave me a good laugh.
But, for the sake of the argument, there's an inherent difference between having sex and doing any of the other activities you mentioned - there is a type of having sex that can "bring forth life" as Bennyback phrased it.
However, the justification is still false. not only humans but also animals have sex that does not intend to bring forth life all the time (matter of fact many kind of animals have gay sex) which seriously undermines the whole Natural Law concept.
Further, the bible does not, of course, go into details when denouncing gay sex. It is never explained what "sex" means. If one is going to go down the Natural Law path then there is exactly one kind of activity that counts as sex and... guess what? no gay sex includes that activity, because it can't. So where do you cross the line? Is two people of the same sex hugging forbidden? How about kissing? Anywhere you decide to pass the line is going to be an arbitrary choice.
It is clear, then, that the concept that there is any similarity between the process that creates life and other activities that can't (or even the same activity with measures taken to ensure it can't) cannot be anything other than a human concept, right?
|
More seriously, your challenge to find any reason for objecting to same sex marriage that does not come from some bigoted view based on outdated morals had me pause to consider if there is, indeed, any such reason to be found.I've been looking for such reasons for a number of years now, and have failed to find any. Of course, this may be because I'm blinded by my own ideology, or it may simply indicate that I'm not as smart and creative as I think I am.
I can think of a number of reasons that would be compelling in other societies. For example, if a too-low birth rate is an issue, then any practices that would take potential breeders out of the group would arguably be a bad thing. My understanding is that this was the case for much of the Bronze Age both because society needed the soldiers to stave off other tribes, and because families needed the labor to support themselves.
Of course, I wouldn't like to live in a society where breeding and childrearing were an individual mandate, and I'm fortunate not to. I don't need children to support me in my old age as I have a retirement account, and the rivalry with the neighboring tribe rarely gets off the athletic field. There are some people whose view on tribalism differs from mine -- "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children" is the same Bronze Age argument moved into 21st century neoNazis -- but those views are not only not mine, but they're also based in bigotry, so they don't really count as a counterexample.
Yup. I usually can come up with a reasonable "Devil's Advocate" counter-point to just about any argument, especially when I go after "my own side", however I pretty much failed on all counts with same-sex marriage. I thought there would be some meat to be found when it comes to what it would cost the federal government to provide benefits, but the CBO did the math and found it to be pretty much a push (and the CBO is as non-partisan as it gets).
About the closest thing I could find is that, when you look at the numbers, it seems as though humanity may be facing a bit of an under-population problem as birth rates seem to be dropping across the board. That being said, I can't come up with a logical reason why allowing same-sex marriage will further disincentive the breeders from having kids and I certainly couldn't find any data to show a causal link for that thesis. If somebody else wants to take up the mantle on this little thought exercise, I would dig there. Honestly, thought, this seems as fruitless as an oak tree.
I thought the math was that we were OVERpopulated, despite the fact that birth rates are down?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I thought the math was that we were OVERpopulated, despite the fact that birth rates are down?
Low birth rates have their own set of problems, such as an aging of the population (the average age goes up if there are less young people to balance out the old people, who's lives are getting longer and longer thanks to technology), which could cause for serious strain on the economy is the ratio between pensioners and workers gets worse.
|
|
I thought the math was that we were OVERpopulated, despite the fact that birth rates are down?
I may have used too broad a brush when I made that statement because I wasn't looking at it through the lens of "how many people can the planet support" but "when does the world population numbers start trending downwards". Based on what I read, the answer to question 2 is "within our lifetime". If current trajectory don't change then within the next few hundred years it could be a real issue; however, it's not exactly a pressing problem right now.
I thought the math was that we were OVERpopulated, despite the fact that birth rates are down?Low birth rates have their own set of problems, such as an aging of the population (the average age goes up if there are less young people to balance out the old people, who's lives are getting longer and longer thanks to technology), which could cause for serious strain on the economy is the ratio between pensioners and workers gets worse.
But that issue is ultimately self-solving and will be completely off the radar in 50-60 years (for modernized Western nations, plus Japan anyway). Plus it is a good thing for the future of humanity. There are many projections which predict that global population will cap out somewhere between 11-12 billion (over the next 100-120 years) and then see a gradual decline back down to around 3-4 billion in just a few generations. As the totality of the world becomes industrialized (and subsequently post-industrialized) there will be a swell of population because local economics will allow for larger families and then those children will have less children and the children they have will come later in life.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I actually thought I was reading the locked "end of days" thread for a second there. It feels like we're approaching some sort of divisive topic singularity.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What was it Neitzsche said about nature? Imagine pure indifference as a power. Who would want to live according to that?
The powerful
Ah, I am from Perth, and more or less answer the same description. Except I don't drink and am left leaning as opposed to socialist. And I love Sydney where I used to live some 32 years ago. [Lapses into senile reverie.]Sydney.... I'm your typical lefty inner west Chardonnay socialist.Where are you from 8th Dwarf?
We in Australia have an aggressive conservative Christian as PM. But he feels the need to disguise what he is to make himself more acceptable to the public and his own party.
The PM is opposed to marriage equality, but we may get it as the government has other problems, and they may not fight on that. One can hope.
I from the far north coast of NSW originally all hippies, sea changers, and alternate lifestylers.
The powerful
What was it Neitzsche said about nature? Imagine pure indifference as a power. Who would want to live according to that?
I was going to say libertarians, but the capitalist free market types also seem to love that kind of thing.
The weirdest outfall of all of this is hearing conservative republicans rail against judicial power and talk about overturning Marbury v. Madison (something I think might be a good idea; the power of judicial review ought to be more spelled out and a proper petition process in place) and lawmakers such as in Utah want to take their ball and go home, taking government out of the marriage game altogether. Which I also agree with. It's a personal and religious ceremony. The government has NO business saying who can and can't get married. Who enters into a civil union, on the other hand...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really want to hear the Natural Law argument's response to bonobos. Assuming I'll be able to hear anything over the sound of their lips smacking.
However, for a non-bigoted reason to deny homosexual marriage?
"Marriage exists for the express purpose of providing a stable home to young developing children through tax incentives. As homosexual couples cannot have kids, they do not qualify."
I mean sure, we'll have to change a few things. If you get snipped or clipped before you have kids, the marriage is annulled. If you have kids, you can't get a divorce. If you don't manage to have kids and you pass a certain age (let's call it 50), the marriage is annulled. If you are too old, you can't get married.
Gosh, this sounds like a lot of trouble. No bigotry though.
More seriously, your challenge to find any reason for objecting to same sex marriage that does not come from some bigoted view based on outdated morals had me pause to consider if there is, indeed, any such reason to be found. I tried to consider ways in which other aspects of lives could be effected by allowing this freedom, I considered long term future ramifications...
Unsurprisingly there really isn't anything and the 4 points I raised are just stuff I came up with then. Still, an interesting thought exercise.
This isn't actually anything to do with religion, but the origins and actual original definitions of the word. In a nutshell, they are attempting to call a Pine tree a Mushroom, which in most entymology, wouldn't make a lot of sense.
Now (though expecting someone to do that here is probably hoping for too much) please read to the end to get the FULL message of what I am saying...and the pros and cons of the argument from a legal standpoint.
Here's one of the main reasons legally. For example, the original word marriage comes from the middle English which comes from maritare, which is Latin for Husband/wife...basically meaning male and female combining into one.
The very definition refers to a Man and a Woman.
Hence, trying to change that word of Man/Woman to Same gender is a little odd. IN some ways it would make more sense to have Marimari or taretare as two different definitions. (matrimony on the other hand, ironically refers to the state of being a mother or mothered).
Later on, (perhaps still in Rome, but I suspect later) the definition was ensued for more definitive impacts to be the state in which offspring were recognized as legal offspring rather than illegal (aka...illegitimate). This of course has been absolutely important among ruling classes of many areas in regards to who inherits and who is recognized among children.
AS obviously same gender marriage is NOT two different genders composed of a man and a woman...and most of those will not be able to have any offspring as per the additional usage...hence no legitmate biologically can be produced...it's unique that LGBT have insisted on using the term of marriage instead of something else.
Now note, this has NOTHING to do with religion (and especially Christian religion as the Romans were anything BUT...and the legitimacy of children has actually been utilized by far more then just Christian European to be inclusive of much of Asia and other cultures as well).
So basically Gay marriage is saying two men are the same as a man and a woman, or two woman are genetically the same as a man and a woman...and that two men can biologically have children and/or two woman can biologically have children (with each other...with NO other influences of biology) which will legally be recognized as their own.
Which is basically bunk, but which is what the term Gay Marriage just about literally means according to the archaic (meaning original definition of the very words that are the root of the term marriage).
That said, now that I've presented the terms of one side, as I worked in legal, and anything and everything can be twisted in legal...I should probably provide the counter argument. I probably can also explain why the above argument wouldn't work (and in reality didn't work) anyways.
First off, we have the changing definitions of words. For example, let's take the word car. If one looks at automobile, you get the word self and moving from the entymology. That means self-moving...which makes some sense. However if you look at the word Car, you get that from the words that would basically be a cart in middle English, and if you go further than that, it means a wheeled chariot. Look at your car....is it a wheeled chariot (chariots need horses by the way). MOst likely...NOT. It probably is a four (sometimes three) wheeled vehicle that has no horses, and has an engine.
The definition has changed from the original entymology of the word.
How did this happen?
Because as a culture changes, the words that a culture associates with things also change. Hence with the word car, though you can obviously see similarities between what we call a car now and what the original wording originated from...they are two completely separate things.
Hence, you can also see that could occur with marriage in that what was called marriage previously and what we call it now, could be a related but not the same thing.
AKA...the origins of a word, though important from a historical perspective, have really no impact upon what it means in modern usage.
What this is unimportant anyways...the US constitution doesn't take into account the entymology of words. What it is considering is whether it is allowed or not. For example, if you suddenly wanted to call all your cars...Horses...is that allowed. Obviously...you have the freedom of speech...therefore, you can call it whatever the heck you want.
What is important then, is whether the rights you have to drive that car are guaranteed to you or not. Is there a legitimate reason that you should not be allowed to drive that car while others drive their chariots around?
The US constitution doesn't really say anything, except that according to the 14th amendment, you cannot discriminate...hence, just because you have a car that you are calling a horse...the government cannot stop you from driving that car on areas where wheeled vehicles are allowed.
It's actually more complex than that...but in a nutshell, the big reason I feel it was legalized was because there are no laws that actually disallow Gay Marriage without imposing restrictions on OTHER areas already guaranteed by the US constitution (freedom of speech, freedom of religion [yes, actually, if a church decided to marry homosexuals, and there ARE churches that do this, no state has the right to disallow this freedom of religion to do so, and so yes, this would have actually been an item of consideration]), and equality are all items that would go into the decision.
BUT, there ARE non-religious arguments that could be utilized (and were). The problem with them is the same as the religious arguments that were brought up and focused on, which is that in reality, when utilizing the US constitution, they don't actually have any impact on the ruling and are inconsequential in regards to what the decision should be.
Getting back to the actual arguments that the states brought, they had a VERY WEAK argument as it was based more on the items I mentioned above (which actually are non-religious arguments, but more or less invalid arguments in regards to current meaning as well as the whether something is constitutional) and religious reasons. If they had really wanted to bring a challenge I agree, they SHOULD HAVE FOCUSED on amendment 10...as there is no portion of the Constitution that allows the Federal government to get involved with Marriage. Of course, I think they value the benefits they gain from government sanctioned marriages...and in so arguing would have weakened the entire point of other benefits they gain from Federally recognized marriages (as opposed to simply state recognized or church recognized).
Even with a focus on the 10th, I think it probably still would have turned out the way it did (as those other freedom guarantees are still there and needed), but the solitary swing vote may have been a harder item to convince then when their main push was based upon irrelevant factors such as the entymology and religious contexts of the wording.
My thoughts on it overall, and why the legal end turned out the way it did.
My focus was actually administrative law (basically paperwork), but even with that when I first heard what their main arguments (the main argument DID have to deal with the entymology rather than religious ideas) were, I knew they would lose as the argument was obviously flawed in regards to what they were arguing for.
But, in truth, the main opposition did present a rather non-religious argument, even if it was for religious reasons they were pushing it.
Both of which are irrelevant (something they SHOULD HAVE REALIZED) in regards to what the constitution is composed of and takes into account.
The weirdest outfall of all of this is hearing conservative republicans rail against judicial power and talk about overturning Marbury v. Madison (something I think might be a good idea; the power of judicial review ought to be more spelled out and a proper petition process in place) and lawmakers such as in Utah want to take their ball and go home, taking government out of the marriage game altogether. Which I also agree with. It's a personal and religious ceremony. The government has NO business saying who can and can't get married. Who enters into a civil union, on the other hand...1) Marriage doesn't have to be a religious ceremony. Or frankly a ceremony at all. The civil union approach satisfies nobody. The bigots fought against civil unions for gays, so they wouldn't be happy. They also wouldn't be happy since some churches would happily marry gays. And plenty of non-religious people want to get married, so they wouldn't be happy with their marriages changed to civil unions. Marriage is a social & cultural thing, not just a religious one.
2) Of course conservatives are quite fine with Marbury v. Madison when the court rules in their favor - Heller, anyone? More than that, Marbury v. Madison seems to be implicit in the constitutional system. The details of judicial review could be spelled out more clearly, but that would take an amendment and we've had 200+ years to do so. Someone has to decide what happens when a defendant argues they shouldn't be punished because of conflicting laws. The judicial system is the obvious place for that to happen and the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the judicial system.
1. Marriage is a religious ceremony. The fact that the government has managed to insert itself into the process doesn't change that. Bigots fought against gay marriage too, and yet here we are. Government has no business in the marriage business. Marriage and civil unions should be two separate things. That way people who care to can get married without having to engage in a civil union and people can engage in a civil union without getting married. All of the government granted goodies that come with being married aren't necessarily always advantageous to people who want to get married. It would be nice to see government marriage licensing go away, maybe then people would stop thinking they need a permission slip to exercise their natural rights.
Remember, rights are not granted by the Constitution (regardless of what Supreme Court judges would have you think). The Constitution protects the natural rights of all people from the government. The Constitution doesn't give gays the right to get married, it stops the government from taking that right away. At least, that's the way it's supposed to work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This isn't actually anything to do with religion, but the origins and actual original definitions of the word. In a nutshell, they are attempting to call a Pine tree a Mushroom, which in most entymology, wouldn't make a lot of sense.More seriously, your challenge to find any reason for objecting to same sex marriage that does not come from some bigoted view based on outdated morals had me pause to consider if there is, indeed, any such reason to be found. I tried to consider ways in which other aspects of lives could be effected by allowing this freedom, I considered long term future ramifications...
Unsurprisingly there really isn't anything and the 4 points I raised are just stuff I came up with then. Still, an interesting thought exercise.
Well, I'll give you credit; this is superficially a non-bigoted argument against gay marriage. Well done.
Of course, as you yourself recognize,
AKA...the origins of a word, though important from a historical perspective, have really no impact upon what it means in modern usage.What this is unimportant anyways...the US constitution doesn't take into account the entymology of words.
... it's also patently irrelevant to the point of spurious.
Just to drive that point home, this argument also suggests that:
* "ecology" is writing about architecture (oikos "house" + logos "words")
* "gynecology" is writing about women's houses (add gynos "woman")
* "hysterical" means "uterine"
* "loyal" and "legal" are synonyms
* "lesbians" are Greek islanders
* "werewolves" are exclusively men (wer is cognate with vir "male")
and
* Einstein's Theory of Relativity simply says that our beer mugs may not be the same size ("ein" + "stein")
|
|
1. Marriage is a religious ceremony. The fact that the government has managed to insert itself into the process doesn't change that. Bigots fought against gay marriage too, and yet here we are. Government has no business in the marriage business. Marriage and civil unions should be two separate things. That way people who care to...The weirdest outfall of all of this is hearing conservative republicans rail against judicial power and talk about overturning Marbury v. Madison (something I think might be a good idea; the power of judicial review ought to be more spelled out and a proper petition process in place) and lawmakers such as in Utah want to take their ball and go home, taking government out of the marriage game altogether. Which I also agree with. It's a personal and religious ceremony. The government has NO business saying who can and can't get married. Who enters into a civil union, on the other hand...1) Marriage doesn't have to be a religious ceremony. Or frankly a ceremony at all. The civil union approach satisfies nobody. The bigots fought against civil unions for gays, so they wouldn't be happy. They also wouldn't be happy since some churches would happily marry gays. And plenty of non-religious people want to get married, so they wouldn't be happy with their marriages changed to civil unions. Marriage is a social & cultural thing, not just a religious one.
2) Of course conservatives are quite fine with Marbury v. Madison when the court rules in their favor - Heller, anyone? More than that, Marbury v. Madison seems to be implicit in the constitutional system. The details of judicial review could be spelled out more clearly, but that would take an amendment and we've had 200+ years to do so. Someone has to decide what happens when a defendant argues they shouldn't be punished because of conflicting laws. The judicial system is the obvious place for that to happen and the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the judicial system.
There are so many aspects of secular modern day life that are an evolution of originally religious concepts and mannerisms that insisting that marriage specifically should be kept strictly religious is not a serious argument. Hack, look back enough in time and the very concept of laws has religious origins, and for most of recorded history invoked various gods and faiths as the source of morality.
Unless you are suggesting that law as well should be handled only in the way that appeals to contemporary religions, you should give up the claim that there's anything inherently religious in a marriage. It, like so many other things, has assimilated into the wider western culture, and the concept should evolve with the times like everything else.
As others have touched on, the reason why the so called "marriage equality" advocates do not wish to show support for plural marriage is due to the nature of the majority of the people that live in these relationships. The majority of these relationships are religious in nature (most often fundamental Mormons or Muslims).
Due to the rocky relationship between marriage equality advocates and religious individuals, it should not be any surprise that marriage equality advocates are not willing to fight for a group of religious individuals' marriage rights.