Jump to content

Can We Support Same-Sex Marriage?


Recommended Posts

Bernard, so are you suggesting polygamy will make a comeback?

 It already is. It's the next milepost.

Link to comment

If you "still" wonder about that, I would say it indicates you do not understand even the basics of the situation. 

 

But don't worry, the Browns have done their share to bring plural marriage into the realm of legality.

It's not about plural marriage, tonie. It's about the destruction of the actual concept of marriage.

Please explain what the imperative of the number 2 and why heterosexual and homosexual 

unions are the only acceptable ones.

Link to comment

Children cannot consent. As to the number, I don't see a particular reason to limit it to two. On the other hand, the kinds of laws that protect interracial marriage and gay marriage wouldn't really apply to polygamous marriage (groups of 3+ people aren't a protected class). 

You say children cannot consent, but not everyone agrees. Why do you believe children cannot consent?

How do you define children?

Link to comment

Bingo. It's the same reason why people can't marry their cats or pumpkins. Civil marriage is a contractual relationship. You have to be able to consent in order to enter a contract.

So, marriage is a contractual relationship between consenting adults.

 

By this argument, fathers and daughters or fathers and sons can marry. Any consensual relationship is open to approval. They are consenting adults. What is a child? Who is to say a person cannot marry a cat?

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to comment

Half serious and half not.  If the definition of marriage can change once, it can change again.  I would not be surprised that if in the next 30 years people will be allowed to marry anything they want. 

In the end, redefining marriage has made the concept meaningless. 

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to comment

In the end, redefining marriage has made it meaningless. 

 

Only if you accept the new definitions.

If you only accept the correct definition of marriage then there is still plenty of meaning left.

Link to comment

You say children cannot consent, but not everyone agrees. Why do you believe children cannot consent?

How do you define children?

 

I think most people are on the same page on consent. Children lack the intellectual capacity and maturity to give meaningful consent. Protections for children have increased over time - it used to be legal to marry older children, but of course now it is not. 

 

I would define a child as anyone under 18, but of course there is some minor disagreement on exact age. 

Link to comment

So, marriage is a contractual relationship between consenting adults.

 

By this argument, fathers and daughters or fathers and sons can marry. Any consensual relationship is open to approval. They are consenting adults. What is a child? Who is to say a person cannot marry a cat?

 

Society can and does place other constraints on contracts apart from consent. For instance, society will not recognize or enforce a contract for murder, even if made between consulting adults. Regarding marriage, many societies place restrictions on close family members marrying. I don't really have much an opinion as to whether those restrictions are wise.

Link to comment

So, marriage is a contractual relationship between consenting adults.

By this argument, fathers and daughters or fathers and sons can marry. Any consensual relationship is open to approval. They are consenting adults.

I agree. So long as both parties are capable of legal consent, I see no legally compelling reason why such marriages should be prohibitted. Do you...?

Who is to say a person cannot marry a cat?

Sigh... Really...? This sentance is tacked on at the end, and departs from the rationale from the rest of your post because it's an entirely different question.

Short answer: you already can privately marry your cat. If you hold a wedding ceremony between you and your cat, no one will arrest you. It's just not legally recognized, nor will it ever be, because animals cannot consent and cannot fulfill even the most basic obligations that legal contracts between two parties require.

Here's what I said earlier in the thread to Carbon Dioxide in response to similar slippery slope arguments about marrying animals, children, and inanimate objects, which should answer your question about the cat:

Your questions (about marriage to children, animals, inanimate objects, or one's self) are nonsensical because they attempt to compare/equate same-sex marriage to issues that require changing legal realities that are far more fundamental and far-reaching than merely the legal definition of marriage.

ANY legally-binding contact requires at least a few fundamental things that your examples obviously lack:

1) at least two parties. A contract is an agreement between two entities/parties... it outlines an agreement with rights and responsibilities for each party. A single individual may have a self-marriage wedding ceremony, but he (or she) cannot civilly "marry himself" (or "herself")--not because marriage is defined as a relationship between a minimum of two people, but because any contract requires at least two. One cannot make or enforce a legally binding contract with one's self. An individual can't bequeath inheritance or spousal or parental or custodial rights to himself (or herself) because he (or she) already has all those rights, in and of him/herself. They already own all their own stuff, their own time, and are responsible for their own children. In the event of their own death, they can't inherent anything because they're already dead.

2) the ability to legally consent/comply with the terms of any contract. Marriage isn't defined by the ages of the spouses. However, legal consent prevents minor children from entering into ANY legally-binding contract (marriage, employment, even prosecutuon as an adult) because consent requires that an individual be emotionally, intellectually, and autonomously capable of entering into a contract. Prior to becoming adults, children lack the ability not just to marry, but to sign ANY legal contracts. They are wards of their parents--that's why kids can't even sign their own school permission slips. Allowing children to "marry" would mean requiring a fundamental change to consentability across ANY and ALL legal contracts... far more than just a function of marriage, which (again) isn't even defined by age, anyway. This is also a driving reason why individuals who's mental competence is compromised (comatose, brain-dead, or severely mentally-challenged) cannot marry... They must be "of sound mind and body"... in other words, capable of consent and fulfilling their portion of the contract.

3) sentiance, which is closely related to (but slightly different than) consent. Legally, animals cannot give consent because they are not sentient--they cannot give consent because they are not self-aware, let alone aware of a legal obligation to fulfill any social responsibilities to others. Because of their lack of sentience, the law considers them property. Its precicely this lack of personhood which allows zoos to own animals and farmers to slaughter livestock, as your query alludes to. But dogs and cats and horses and even apes or dolphins cannot give consent because, although they posses measures of self-awareness and emotions, they do not and cannot even understand the ability to enter into a reciprocal, legally binding contract. They cannot exercise custody of their owners, and cannot make decisions about their owners' care, in the event of tragedy. I suppose a person who owns their pet may have a marriage ceremony and consider themself married to their pet, and a person may choose to leave their inheritance to their pets--but even in those cases, a human executor is required to officiate over the estate, because the pets themselves cannot legally consent, and they are intellectually capable of making self-determinative choices because of their lack of sentience. Like children, animals aren't excluded from marriage because of marriage's definition, but because animals cannot make or sign up to ANY legal contract. This is the same for toasters or cars or houses or corpses anything else that's inanimate.

Gays and lesbians are different from children, parakeets, Nintendos, dogs, cats, babies, dead bodies, etc precisely BECAUSE gays and lesbians already share the same ability to make legally binding adult decisions for themselves and each other--just like heterosexual couples, and just like interracial couples.

Recognizing our relationships didn't require a change to the legal understanding of consent, the requirement of at least two people to enter a contract, or sentience. Our relationships are reciprocal, just as straight couples' marriages are--it was simply a matter of extending the equal right to consenting adults who were and are legally similarly situated.

It is offensive to slander gays and lesbians by equating us with cattle, chattle, or children. Hopefully this tendency will diminish, as the majority of such demeaning comments eventually did after marriage equality emerged for mixed-race couples.

Edited by Daniel2
Link to comment

Daniel, why does it matter if I recognize your marriage or not?  What validation do you need from other citizens to be "married" or even be recognized as a couple?  I suspect there are almost as many other couples in a relationship that are not recognized as "married" in our society as there are that recognized.  What is the need or the "right" that is being sought after?  Could it be achieved in any other way or is there a different agenda at work?

Link to comment

Daniel, why does it matter if I recognize your marriage or not? What validation do you need from other citizens to be "married" or even be recognized as a couple? I suspect there are almost as many other couples in a relationship that are not recognized as "married" in our society as there are that recognized. What is the need or the "right" that is being sought after? Could it be achieved in any other way or is there a different agenda at work?

From a civil/legal perspective:

In the public realm, everyone needs to recognize and respect the legality of others' marriages to which the government grants recognition because we are a nation ruled by law, and there are legal and social benefits that accompany civil marriage, and the Constitution of our shared government mandates equal protection (short of a legally compelling reason to withhold it). The agenda being sought is civil equality... a civil acceptance on equal grounds as other marriages that are likewise civilly recognized. Doing so is an extention of the civil right of religious freedom, as well.

From a religious/personal perspective:

You don't need to recognize my marriage, and are free to believe and teach and promote your views about marriage, including what you believe about the type of marriage that's acceptable to God.

As far as the Constitutional requirements of the 14th Ammendment mandating equal protection are concerned, to paraphrase Eve: 'I see that this must be... there is no other way.'

Edited by Daniel2
Link to comment

Does the same principle apply for ordinances outside the temple? If my daughter is scared of being immersed, can we baptize her by sprinkling (outward ceremony) without changing the underlying ordinances and covenants?

My understanding is that the word baptism comes from a Greek word meaning, to immerse, and that baptism is symbolic of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ and of the "death" of the pre-covenant individual, his burial, and his rebirth as a new creature who has covenanted with Christ.  I'm sure you'll disagree (Vive le difference!) but I believe all of those things are fundamental to the ordinance in ways that any changes in temple ordinances are not fundamental to them

Link to comment

 I'm sure you'll disagree (Vive le difference!) but I believe all of those things are fundamental to the ordinance in ways that any changes in temple ordinances are not fundamental to them

 

You're right - I do disagree.  ;):mega_shok:

Edited by JLHPROF
Link to comment

You're right - I do disagree.  ;):mega_shok:

OK.  I'll cast my lot with the Brethren who are responsible for the changes you oppose.

 

Thanks,

 

-Ken

Link to comment

OK.  I'll cast my lot with the Brethren who are responsible for the changes you oppose.

 

Thanks,

 

-Ken

 

Isaiah 24:5 - :vader:

Link to comment

Age of consent for sexual intercourse varies throughout the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent#/media/File:Age_of_Consent_-_Global.svg

 

and has progressively been raised from the 1500s up to present day. It has been as low as 10 years old. The age of consent to marry is actually different, older.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriageable_age

 

The age of consent to baptism is 8 years old.

 

 

Link to comment

Isaiah 24:5 - :vader:

 

As I said:

 

OK.  I'll cast my lot with the Brethren who are responsible for the changes you oppose.

 

Thanks,

 

-Ken

Either the Restoration of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints constitutes a restoration of all things, not to be interrupted by another apostasy, or it does not.  I think it does.  To each, his own.  I wish you well. 

Link to comment

So, marriage is a contractual relationship between consenting adults.

By this argument, fathers and daughters or fathers and sons can marry. Any consensual relationship is open to approval. They are consenting adults. What is a child? Who is to say a person cannot marry a cat?

This is an even more ridiculous argument.
Link to comment

This is an even more ridiculous argument.

I agree, but these are the very arguments that were made for same sex marriage before it became acceptable. In this context, can you exlain why marriage should be limited to only 2 women, 2 men, and 1 man and one woman? The new definition...marriage is a contract between 2 consenting adults....why just 2 if everyone consents and .what conditions and restrictions can logically be applied to the contractees

Link to comment

I agree. So long as both parties are capable of legal consent, I see no legally compelling reason why such marriages should be prohibitted. Do you?

Given your definition, no. [EDIT] Thanks to the SSM movement and soon the Supreme Court, the field is now wide open which is why I believe the concept has been rendered meaningless.

 

Short answer: you already can privately marry your cat. If you hold a wedding ceremony between you and your cat, no one will arrest you. It's just not legally recognized, nor will it ever be, because animals cannot consent and cannot fulfill even the most basic obligations that legal contracts between two parties require.....

We shall see. It is interesting that a marriage between a person and a cat falls within the new acceptable social, though not legal, definition of marriage.

 

Your questions (about marriage to children, animals, inanimate objects, or one's self) are nonsensical because they attempt to compare/equate same-sex marriage to issues that require changing legal realities that are far more fundamental and far-reaching than merely the legal definition of marriage......It is offensive to slander gays and lesbians by equating us with cattle, chattle, or children. Hopefully this tendency will diminish, as the majority of such demeaning comments eventually did .

No slander was intended toward you personally, though I lament the changes. But considering the radical and destructive changes that have been made to the fundamental concept of marriage, further dissolution is not only conceivable, but inevitable. There are current trends that are moving against the very restrictions and limitations you so ably describe. To clarify further your position, would you agree that the next restriction to be removed will be numerical?

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to comment

What's meaningless about it?

Because any restrictions on numbers or participants can now be challenged by those who feel they are being treated unfairly.

How would you argue that a marriage contract can only be between 2 people if all parties consent?

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to comment

Only if you accept the new definitions.

If you only accept the correct definition of marriage then there is still plenty of meaning left.

We have lost this battle. That's why I believe the Church will soon move toward sealings of civil marriages

between a man and a woman only, and even that will be challenged and condemned by activists and even by some members.

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...