What is REALLY at issue with the Same-Sex Marriage debate?

[Ansgar Seraph]

This is only partially true. It's primarily a contract between individuals and the state. It's why it confers certain benefits on the married couple. In fact, your entire basis for support of gay marriage relies on the state-individual portion of the contract, which is why they can be used to support marriage with pets or objects or children.

No, the state confers benefits but it doesn't contract with the individuals within a marriage contract. The state can, at its discretion, offer benefits and incentives to married couples but there is no contract between individuals and the state. The state views a married couple as one legal person for certain applications but that does not denote a contract with the state, either.

Even if it were so, it would still entail a contract between two consenting adults and the state, the latter contract being contingent on the former. Without consenting adults, there would be no contract.

—Sam

[Seasanctuary]

Gay people have the same marriage rights and restrictions as straight people: They can marry someone of the opposite sex, just like a straight person can. And they can't marry someone of the same sex just like straight people can't. They also can't marry furniture, pets, vehicles or themselves. Just like straight people.

And anti-miscegenation laws gave everyone the same rights. Blacks could marry people of the same race, just like whites could.

The problem is that the government is telling two people: you can both get married to other people, but not to each other. That's a personal decision the state has no business interfering with.

[Sparko]

And because marriage is a contract. And a contract requires two consenting adults.

Why that's just discrimination!

I'm not entirely sure there are laws preventing an individual from marrying a family member in all states . . . regardless, the same rule would apply. Can the government demonstrate a compelling reason to deny consenting adults the right to marry? As it pertains to incest, there certainly are genetic/procreative reasons for concern. Whether they are compelling or not is a case study for a different topic, however.

—Sam

they don't have to have children Sam.

you just want to discriminate against people who want to marry their relatives.

[Sparko]

No, the state confers benefits but it doesn't contract with the individuals within a marriage contract. The state can, at its discretion, offer benefits and incentives to married couples but there is no contract between individuals and the state. The state views a married couple as one legal person for certain applications but that does not denote a contract with the state, either.

Even if it were so, it would still entail a contract between two consenting adults and the state, the latter contract being contingent on the former. Without consenting adults, there would be no contract.

—Sam

You haven't been using any "contractual argument" for allowing same-sex marriage. you have been arguing a moral argument for allowing it. If you want to argue marriage contracts, why then it is illegal for two consenting gay adults to enter into a marriage contract. so there.

[Darth Executor]

No, the state confers benefits but it doesn't contract with the individuals within a marriage contract. The state can, at its discretion, offer benefits and incentives to married couples but there is no contract between individuals and the state. The state views a married couple as one legal person for certain applications but that does not denote a contract with the state, either.

The benefits the state confers are contingent on the couple's status. If they divorce, they no longer receive the benefits for example. That is what a contract is: a mutually agreed upon statement of action.

Even if it were so, it would still entail a contract between two consenting adults and the state, the latter contract being contingent on the former. Without consenting adults, there would be no contract.

—Sam

There is no reason why you can't just have one consenting adult contracting with the state though. That is true of marriage, but hardly a necessary element. It's only a married couple because of tradition. The same tradition that denies marriage to gay couples. There is no reason to be shackled to tradition in the case of gay marriage any more than there is in the case of marrying your dog, especially in the context of a pluralistic secular society.

[Ansgar Seraph]

Why that's just discrimination!



they don't have to have children Sam.

you just want to discriminate against people who want to marry their relatives.

Actually, I haven't made any absolute statement that incestuous marriage should be illegal! I've noted a concern that the government would do well to consider but it's not the only concern, nor is the concern itself necessarily sufficient. If I were libertarian, I'd argue that consensual contracts between two adults should not be interfered with by the government and incestuous marriage should thus be legal. But I merely noted that it's not particularly germane to this conversation, as none of the people advocating same-sex marriage here are committed to denying marriage to siblings.

It's a red herring that's trotted out to make same-sex marriage appear ridiculous. I'd much prefer that we actually deal with the pertinent issues at hand.

--Sam

[Ansgar Seraph]

The benefits the state confers are contingent on the couple's status. If they divorce, they no longer receive the benefits for example. That is what a contract is: a mutually agreed upon statement of action.



There is no reason why you can't just have one consenting adult contracting with the state though. That is true of marriage, but hardly a necessary element. It's only a married couple because of tradition. The same tradition that denies marriage to gay couples. There is no reason to be shackled to tradition in the case of gay marriage any more than there is in the case of marrying your dog, especially in the context of a pluralistic secular society.

So if I'm reading you right, I can declare unilaterally that you and I are married and contract with the government to confer marital status, responsibility and benefit on our union? If you ask me, that's a pretty big reason right there why you can't have one individual contracting with the state against the other's will or without the other's legal agreement.

The State's conferring benefits does not necessarily constitute a legal contract. The state might be obligated to provide benefits but it is obligated by statute, not by contract.

--Sam

[Ansgar Seraph]

You haven't been using any "contractual argument" for allowing same-sex marriage. you have been arguing a moral argument for allowing it. If you want to argue marriage contracts, why then it is illegal for two consenting gay adults to enter into a marriage contract. so there.

Honestly. I haven't been taking a moral argument at all. I have been arguing along legal lines. Marriage is a right, as determined by Loving vs. Virginia. Restricting that right legally requires compelling reason. Without compelling reason, the government is unconstitutionally depriving a specific group of consenting adults of the right to enter into a legal contract.

If morality enters into the picture at all, it's the moral argument that unjustified discrimination is wrong. I feel pretty confident with that being a fairly universal morality.

--Sam

[Darth Executor]

So if I'm reading you right

You aren't.

The State's conferring benefits does not necessarily constitute a legal contract. The state might be obligated to provide benefits but it is obligated by statute, not by contract.

No, the statute may set the terms of the contract, but it is still a contract:

con·tract   
1.
an agreement between two or more parties for the doing or not doing of something specified.

[Ansgar Seraph]

Along these lines of dictionary definitions:

"Victory Through Lexicography." Roderick Long. May 9. Accessed 2012-05-10

If we are going to appeal to traditional usage to deny that same-sex partnerships are genuine marriages, then by the same argument we will have to deny that relationships between legal equals can count as marriages. In the traditional meaning of “marriage,” then, there are no married couples in the United States today. 

If instead we insist that relationships among legal equals can be marriages, then we have granted that marriage is an open-textured concept whose meaning is not limited to its historically given forms; in that case, same-sex marriage can no longer be ruled out by linguistic fiat.

© source where applicable

A good read concerning the perils of making one's stand on the dictionary definition of the word.

--Sam

[Darth Executor]

Marriage is a right, as determined by Loving vs. Virginia. Restricting that right legally requires compelling reason.

The situations are not comparable. Gay people can get married, the state simply won't recognize it. Anti-miscegenation laws outright prohibited people from getting married. There is no such equivalent law prohibition gay marriage.

[Sparko]

Honestly. I haven't been taking a moral argument at all. I have been arguing along legal lines. Marriage is a right, as determined by Loving vs. Virginia. Restricting that right legally requires compelling reason. Without compelling reason, the government is unconstitutionally depriving a specific group of consenting adults of the right to enter into a legal contract.

right, just like those poor hicks who want to marry their sisters, or their tractor.

There are always numerous restrictions on who can enter into which kind of contracts sam. If you want to argue along those lines then you have to allow anyone to enter into any contract for any reason. I don't think you want to go there.

If morality enters into the picture at all, it's the moral argument that unjustified discrimination is wrong. I feel pretty confident with that being a fairly universal morality.

--Sam

So what is your take on the bible being against homosexual relations? Your profile says you are a Christian.

[Cerebrum123]

Sam, I have a quick question as well. Just because it's a "legal contract" for these child "marriages" in Islamic countries, does that mean it's somehow ok? What if they wanted to simply institute it that way over here? Just get it so they can have the parents sign the consent in the contract. Considering how bad human nature is, this isn't that big of a leap, especially with groups like NAMBLA running about. NAMBLA and the Muslims who want to engage in this behavior could say that you are discriminating against them.

[Ansgar Seraph]

right, just like those poor hicks who want to marry their sisters, or their tractor.

There are always numerous restrictions on who can enter into which kind of contracts sam. If you want to argue along those lines then you have to allow anyone to enter into any contract for any reason. I don't think you want to go there.

I've been standing there. The defining restriction for marriage, the one you continuously abuse with talk of marrying children or horses or tractors, is that marriage is a legal contract between consenting adults. Just how many variations on that theme are problematic from a theoretical standpoint? None: the test for them is the same. Does the government have a compelling reason to restrict the rights of consenting adults entering into a legal contract? You would deal with all of those examples on their own merits. Here, we ask whether the government has a compelling reason to deny homosexual adults the right to enter into a legal union contract. Aside from OtherCheek's link of abused studies, there has been no effort made to show this to be the case.

So what is your take on the bible being against homosexual relations? Your profile says you are a Christian.

I believe that, even with the debate regarding specific NT verses dealing with homosexuality, there remains an implicit stricture against homosexual activity in the Bible. The religious decision regarding homosexual activity, however, is not germane to the civil decision.

--Sam

[Ansgar Seraph]

Sam, I have a quick question as well. Just because it's a "legal contract" for these child "marriages" in Islamic countries, does that mean it's somehow ok? What if they wanted to simply institute it that way over here? Just get it so they can have the parents sign the consent in the contract. Considering how bad human nature is, this isn't that big of a leap, especially with groups like NAMBLA running about. NAMBLA and the Muslims who want to engage in this behavior could say that you are discriminating against them.

No, it does not make it OK; it is not right for a parent to be forcing a child into that kind of life contract. It is true that the government discriminates against groups like NAMBLA and others who want to legalize child marriage. In this case, however, the government clearly has an interest in protecting the rights of children; even if the children's parents would seek to violate those rights. We cannot guarantee a person's right to freedom if that right can be irrevocably overridden by a parent while the person is a minor.

--Sam