He's rather charming here. And patient. Why doesn't marriage equality include all marriages, including polygamous marriages, if the only principle at stake here is all people have a right to have their relationships treated equally if those relationships are important to their happiness? The students have no answer, so they try to claim its not a legitimate question:
120 Comments
Because marriage is between two people. They answered that. Statements like polygamous or beastiality is nothing more than a distraction, that unfortunetly has gained tracktion. It is your sides way of keeping peoples eyes on your left hand while your right hand pushes gay and lesbian americans down to the ground. No surprise. Westboro Church Lite, is what I consider you.
FYI: It has been said on this site where is the proof that younger people support Marriiage Equality. I think the students spoke up loud and clear.
easy answer. polygamy is illegal and homosexuality is not.
The values of young people today, sadly, are misguided at best. They say they want any relationship that promotes "happiness." Forget about polygamy, that's a distraction because it involves more than two people. What about incest? If it makes them happy, then HOW DARE OUR GOV'T REFUSE TO ALLOW BROTHERS AND SISTERS TO MARRY?! I believe this will be the next "civil rights cause of our time": to allow relative-attracted persons (RAPs) the right to marry.
According to the logic of these college students, why in the heck not?
IP
HOMOSEXUALITY SHOULD BE ILLEGAL.!
John- I and God totally agree iwth you. and i am the greatest preacher to ever walk the earth. http://www.roberttiltonlive.com
Why should marriage be only between two people? How is maintaining such a standard any less bigoted and oppressive and restrictive than keeping it between a man and a woman. The only reason it is between two people is because there are only two genders. Once gender is irrelevant, what is there to keep such a numerical standard than bigotry and prejudice?
"easy answer. polygamy is illegal and homosexuality is not."
So if polygamy was legalized, you would have no problem with it? We do after all, allow people to have more than one sexual partner (threesomes.) So we might as well.
What does it mean for 'homosexuality to be illegal'? For it to not be illegal for two people of same sex to engage in sexual activity? It is not illegal for three people to live together and engage in sexual activity with each other, either. If the particular sexual must be legal for 'marriage' to be legal, then polygamy meets the criterion.
Why is marriage 'only between two people'? You recite it as if it is obvious to everyone, and needs no explanation. But until very recently, it was obvious to everyone that marriage was between only a man and a woman. If we are called upon to rationally justify the traditional understanding of marriage, then you must rationally justify the new definition you are proposing. The only reason marriage has historically been limited to 'two people' is because there are two sexes, male and female (academic gender deconstructionists to the contrary). If you remove the condition that the two people be of opposite sexes, you remove the reason that marriage has historically been monogamous.
The sort of young people who go to Santorum events generally go to object to him. The views of young voters in some states, especially liberal ones, are not representative of the views of young voters in the whole country.
I think it is worth mentioning that he was giving this speech to a Young REPUBLICAN"S group. The college kids booing him consider themselves conservative. What was the latest poll showing that 75-80% of people under the age of 30 have no problem with same sex marriage? I think this is somewhat of a telling sign about how even though this is such a big issue today that it won't be tomorrow. When these kids grow up and become lawmakers, this will be very much of a non-issue.
"The sort of young people who go to Santorum events generally go to object to him."
Actually, an antigay campaigner spoke at a lecture at my university and was booed off stage. The younger generation has a far better understanding of, tolerance toward, and sympathy for, homosexuals. They haven't been bombarded with near the amount of antigay slander (like that which NOM is pushing) as was the generation before.
It was encouraging to hear the applause at the end, because it showed that, though SSMers were the most vocal, a good number of the audience members agreed with Rick.
These students didn't want to see the connection between “people should be allowed to do what makes them happy” and polygamy. Usually, SSMers *try * to claim that polygamy is irrelevant to the matter; indeed, they must deflect the topic, because there is no principled case against polygamy if happiness is all that matters with regard to marriage. (See comment 1: “Marriage is between two people.” Why? “Because marriage is between two people.”)
It’s obvious that these students don’t have the slightest understanding of marriage, or why it is a public concern. They probably believe that the government is involved in marriage because it wants people to have lavish weddings.
We must get the word out to young people about marriage. SSMers think that young people support ssm because they are more accepting of gay people. In actuality, many young people probably support ssm because they have no idea what purpose marriage serves in society.
mike: polygamy is bigamy which is a crime.
son of adam: i don't really have an opinion about polygamy one way or the other. i was simply stating a fact. if people are interested in state sanctioned polygamy their first step is to have their behavior legalized
odd now many people here equate a sex act with the institution of marriage.
The polygamy question is a straw man argument. Santorum said, "If two is OK, why not three?" Someone should mention to him that marriage between two people of the opposite sex hasn't made polygamy legal. Neither will marriage between two people of the same sex.
NH voters support marriage equality by a 2-1 margin right now, with 47% of the GOP in the state supporting it. this article from the WSJ, http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/01/06/gay-marriage-becomes-issue-in-n-h-gop-primary/, points out why anti-family and anti-marriage equality forces will lose this fight from here on out!
son of adam, legalization of polygamy is of no import to me. just stating a fact.
Jesus was never married. And we're supposed to strive to be more like Jesus. Therefore, nobody should get married.
Here's some perspective for everyone:
The answer to the question posed here ("Why not open marriage to more than 2 people") is that marriage is legally defined as a contract between 2 people who can give consent. If the polygamists of the nation want to lobby for the right to form unions larger than 2, they are within their legal right to pursue that. This has little or nothing to do with same sex marriage equality, however. Remember people, marriage has a LEGAL definition which is the object of debate here. The RELIGIOUS definition can't be changed by the government, and no one is trying to do that anyway.
@Son of Adam
"Why should marriage be only between two people? How is maintaining such a standard any less bigoted and oppressive and restrictive than keeping it between a man and a woman."
As has been said a million times before, no one is born a polygamist. Ones sexual orientation is an inborn, immutable trait. Even if you believe it's cause is primarily environmental (a position that I believe is fast becoming completely untenable, but that's beside the point) it is still an immutable trait. We don't discriminate against the handicapped simply because their handicap was cause later in life, and similarly we ought not discriminate against someone based on their sexual orientation, regardless of how it develops.
Polygamy on the other hand is a historical institution, not an inborn trait. It is legitimate to discriminate against polygamous relationships because polygamy actually is a lifestyle choice. Everyone, both gay and straight, has likely at some time though it would be nice (if not exactly moral or ethical) to have their own little personal harem. So anti-bigamy laws effect all people the same, you can live and have sex with as many people as you want, but the government has no compelling interest in recognizing more that one legal spouse per person at a time. The government does, on the other hand, have all sorts of legitimate interest in recognizing each individuals one spouse regardless of gender.
"The only reason it is between two people is because there are only two genders."
Orly?? Can you back this up? Or do you believe it true simply because you've stated it. Why then was marriage between one man and multiple women throughout much of the past? Why, pray tell, does even the Bible upon which so many anti-equality folks base their views about gender and sexuality sanction polygamy? You can scream that marriage customs are based entirely on a gender binary until you're blue in the face, it doesn't make it true.
"Once gender is irrelevant, what is there to keep such a numerical standard than bigotry and prejudice?"
Again, if gender is the sole reason for opposing polygamy then you're going to have to explain away thousands of years of history during which polygamy was practiced despite strong gender norms and societal rejection of homosexuality and homosexuals.
I tell ya, I'm a gingrich supporter but that may change. Santorum is really impressing me.
When I read the article it said he was booed the entire time. Most of the audience are applauding him.
Do they agree with him or do they applaud him for standing up for his beliefs?
Either way, this man I believe articulates the case for traditional marriage better than most people.
A - The debate is about two consensual adults who want to get married. Using the slippery slope argument is specious. One could argue, as long as the religious right deny homosexual couples the right to marry what's not to hinder them from exterminating them as well? After all, "It's important if we are going to have a discussion based on rational, reasoned, thought that we employ reason."
B - Marriage has not, "in fact ... always been, ... the union of a man and a woman." Many cultures throughout history have engaged in polygamy. Women have traditionally been, for thousands of years, considered property. In Afghanistan, a raped woman must marry the man who raped her. Let's at least get our facts correct about what marriage has been through out history and still remains to be today.
C- Santorum's argument goes, "God made man and woman and man and woman come together to have a union to produce children which keeps civilization going and provide the best environment for children to be raised."
By that logic, why are infertile couples allowed to marry? Or people too old to have kids or who just aren't interested in having them?
Also, there is no evidence whatsoever that the children of gay parents are any different or worse off than the children of straight parents. That is a blatant falsehood. Again, to have a reasoned argument it really does behoove the debater to use solid, available facts and not to make ones up out of thin air to support his point.
Too bad the student's weren't more articulate.
I think the boos show how well his message resonated with his audience.
Santorum did you good job with explaining why SSM is a BAD idea...
Legalizing polygamy would require a whole new set of laws to enforce. The LGBT community is simply asking for the same laws heterosexuals have extended to them.
Polygamy and beastiality arguments are slippery slope arguments, as well. It plays on fears people have instead of relying on facts to prove a point.
Also, it's sad that Santorum never really directly answered the original question. It's such a great question to ask individuals who are against gay marriage for religious reasons.
I hardly heard any at all. They were drowned out by the applause.
Lets just give Rick the benefit of the doubt and agree that polyamorous marriages ought not be permitted. Not beneficial to society. Bad idea. Super.
Doesn't really answer the student's question though ... why government should cae about the gender(s) of two consenting adults who wish to marry. Or, more to the point, why the government should deny them the legal protections of marriage based on their gender(s).
I have a few suggestions for Mr. Santorum on the off chance that somebody else raises this question again in the future.
1) Brush up on your constitution, especially the 14th amendment which requires that "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Marriages provide legal protections ... so ... the idea of denying those protections to ANY PERSON is a constitutional issue.
2) Be careful about justifying marriage inequality based on your notions that ONLY traditional marriages can benefit society - or that biology is automatically a credential for superior parenting. These assertions are factually inaccurate.
3) Be honest (for a change) and skip all these verbal favors gymnastics. The simple reality is that Mr. Santorum favors traditional marriage as a matter of religious conviction. So just say that, and let voters decide if they want to put a theocrat into the highest office in the land.
What's odd about it?
Marriage is a sexual relationship in the eyes of the law and society.
What makes marriage marriage is being between male and female,which has historically been far more central than its being "between two people".(I am NOT religious and never have been).
The institution of marriage exists to reward and protect the formation and maintenance of male-female relationships,and those who wish to form relationships that fail to meet that criterion are not eligible for the associated benefits and have no "right" to them.
Caleb,credulity toward the propaganda of the homosexual lobby does not translate into "understanding of" homosexuals,only (undeserved) "sympathy for" and (harmful) "tolerance of" the lobby's irrational demands that homosexual activity be treated as if it were unobjectionable.(Note that most sympathizers with the undeserved acceptance of homosexual relationships are not homosexual themselves these days,and I would certainly vote for a homosexual who honestly acknowledged his orientation to be a disorder (s)he had a responsibility never to gratify over a heterosexual who demanded that same-sex sexual relationships be treated as if they were of no lesser worth than opposite-sex ones.
This comment by TC Matthews from another blog is a fitting reply:
Chris, I doubt those polls, but let's concede that they are true for the sake of argument. Even if they are true, New Hampshire is not representative of the country as a whole in any respect: it a significantly more secular and white than the average state, and libertarians have consciously moved there in an attempt to make the state 'more libertarian.' It has not grown in population in a significant way in a long time. So to act like it proves anything is highly dubious.
Cameron, you ask questions about infertile couples, but do not answer the question about polygamy- in fact, you dismiss it as self-evidently ridiculous. Why is it so obviously wrong, in your view? If what you believe is true -that 'love makes a family'- there is no reason not to have polygamy. Polygamy would not, in fact, require very many technical changes to marriage laws (if that is your only concern), and certainly not very many more than same-sex marriage requires. In any case, it skirts around the central issue, which is why you believe marriage must be between two people in the first place. Why? Why must it be between two people? You act like this is some obvious truth, but provide no reasons for thinking that it is so.
What about two brothers and an aunt who are raising a child, shouldn't they be allowed to marry? Just like 3 friends who want to marry. Why not, if same sex friendships can now be called a marriages?
What is the problem with other kinds of marriages? I know of one foursome (two husbands and two wives) who live together as if they were all married to each other. They seem happy and stable. It seems a potentially larger family unit of multiple males and females would provide for a better environment for children. If one adult dies in an accident the children still have other parents to take care of them. Much less likely that a single parent household would created when a spouse dies.
"it's sad that Santorum never really directly answered the original question."
That's because it was a loaded question based on the fallacy that treating people equally is the exact same thing as treating their behaviors and sexual practices equally. It is not. And Santorum was right not to be baited by such a sophmoric strawman.
TG, if your post does not prove the credibility of the slippery slope argument, I don't know what will.
Why is polygamy seen as so outrageous a comparison? If we let gays have same-sex marriage It seems logical for bisexuals to have polygamy. The restriction on number seems to equal the restriction on gender
I support traditional marriage, which provides a safe environment for children, speaking collectively and not individually!
"When these kids grow up and become lawmakers, this will be very much of a non-issue."
That's assuming that none of their views will never change as they grow older and wiser. Remember that people said that abortion will become a non issue by the year 2000 using the same reasoning.
John Blatzheim, (is that really your name?) your post only shows how much of your views are based on the misinformation promoted by the media. Not even the American Psychological Association contends that homosexuality is inborn or genetic anymore for lack of any scientific evidence that it is. Not to mention all the thousands of identical twins out there in which one is straight and the other is gay. And you can read testimonials of ex-gays who have switched their orientation and left the gay lifestyle found on the Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Exodus International websites.
As for polygamy, that institution was an exercise of the oppression and dominance of women throughout history. Marrying multiple wives was a means of degrading women to the status of material objects. It also promotes pedophilia.
Natural marriage, however, involves both genders being equally represented in each marital union and has gone a long way of helping to establish the political equality of women. It also promotes the virtues of putting men and women together as opposed to segregating them in the interests of the government sponsored promotion of the veiws and standards of a special interest group.
Since the majority of high courts and the U.S. Supreme Court (Baker v. Nelson) have rejected a constitutional right to same sex marriage, you might be the one who needs to "brush up on the constitution."
Two very important points that were ignored. The difference between a right and a priviledge and the federal benefits that come with it.
Forget all this bull about the right to marry. Hell marry your cactus plant if you want. But where was there ever a right to government recognition of your relatonship? It does not exist. There is no right to a license from the government. The sodomites are claiming a right that does not exist. They do not deserve recognition from their phony marriages because it brings no benefit to society. Man/Woman marriage benefits all of us by bringing forth offspring. It benefits all of us including single people.
Remember the 1100+ benefits that are available to married people but not single people. Benefits that were created as incentives to procreate. SSM would give these benefits to a sexual behavior that purposely does not procreate.
So John Noe, that leads to the logical conclusion we should EXCLUDE benefits from infertile women and impotent men who decide to tie the knot, right? Since, despite all of their "incentives to procreate", they can't
@ Evan, Cameron, John Blatzheim, Christ, your arguments are unintelligent, misinformed, and downright heinous...
The fact of the matter here, Rick Santorum "successfully" exposed the female student's belief that everyone should be happy, and be able to marry whomever they want, as long as it is between to people...He got her to admit that the same discrimination protested against gay couples, she has toward polygamy relationships. (Notice also, how the young student retracts her original answer to Rick's question to hide her prejudice against group marriage) and avoids giving in to reasoning...
Just as long as everyone here is clear, Rick's polygamy argument was not in reality supporting group marriage, but was establishing that govt anywhere is to service the people as a whole for the wellbeing of many not the few, or for individual’s happiness... Laws are meant to protect society, he’s saying that how can anyone, govt, or whomever make the argument that polygamy is an outrageous idea and not find a similar uproar for sex same marriage, gay relationships… which lifestyle would cause the most harm, without question “pseudo relationships” would, most definitely!
What the little girl failed to understand is, the harm she envision with group marriages was not applied rationally to her belief in same sex marriages …
The good news she has the ability to reason and have a sense to what is right and wrong: the very bad news, SSM supporters did a good job getting her to believe that SSM, homosexuality is a good idea. NOW, work needs to be done to reprogram her perception to right and wrong on the issue before all hope is gone....
@ Evan, Cameron, John Blatzheim, Christ, your arguments are unintelligent, misinformed, and downright heinous...
The fact of the matter here, Rick Santorum "successfully" exposed the female student's belief that everyone should be happy, and be able to marry whomever they want, as long as it is between to people...He got her to admit that the same discrimination protested against gay couples, she has toward polygamy relationships. (Notice also, how the young student retracts her original answer to Rick's question to hide her prejudice against group marriage) and avoids giving in to reasoning...
Just as long as everyone here is clear, Rick's polygamy argument was not in reality supporting group marriage, but was establishing that govt anywhere is to service the people as a whole for the wellbeing of many not the few, or for individual’s happiness... Laws are meant to protect society, he’s saying that how can anyone, govt, or whomever make the argument that polygamy is an outrageous idea and not find a similar uproar for sex same marriage, gay relationships… which lifestyle would cause the most harm, without question “pseudo relationships” would, most definitely!
What the little girl failed to understand is, the harm she envision with group marriages was not applied rationally to her belief in same sex marriages …
The good news she has the ability to reason and have a sense to what is right and wrong: the very bad news, SSM supporters did a good job getting her to believe that SSM, homosexuality is a good idea. NOW, work needs to be done to reprogram her perception to right and wrong on the issue before all hope is gone.....
If you look at the actual marriage laws, you won't find the 1100 benefits mentioned in them.
Those benefits are scattered across other laws and statutes and so its those that would be at issue, rather than marriage law itself.
Furthermore, the elderly and infertile have a right to try to procreate, and that presumes a right to marry.
Keiran- those couples would very well be the exception due to a condition out of their control...gays have the choice to marry someone of the opposite sex to receive marriage benefts, or not to get married and not be eligible for these benefits, IT's a choice issue, or it becomes a special case where there are exceptions to the rules.
As for polygamy, that's no concern of mine. If other people want to fight for or against polygamy, that's their thing. It does seem as if it would greatly complicate family law in ways that same sex marriage would not.
I'm glad to see a majority of Americans now support same-sex marriage. It's really important that all children have the right to have married parents. Marriage provides important benefits to children, like access to health care they might otherwise not be eligible for if their parents aren't married!
Although there are many good factual arguements posted, the bottom line is that the concept of marriage is a religious one. Our founding fathers were very specific about the seperation of church and state. (You can argue this till your blue in the face, but it IS a historical fact.) Therefore, the government should not be recognizing any marriage since marriage is a religious institution, however, civil unions are a legal contract and would be appropriate for legal recognition. From what I see, both sides are incorrect.
Don't be fooled by the polls, james. Polls indicated that the majority of the people in Maine and California supported SS"M" before Proposition 8 and Question 1 shot it down, proving the loaded nonsense these polls actually are.
"...that leads to the logical conclusion we should EXCLUDE benefits from infertile women and impotent men who decide to tie the knot, right? Since, despite all of their "incentives to procreate", they can't."
Couples like that are the exception, not the rule. And laws are not established based on every possible exception. Doing so is not at all logical.
For an example of how polls can be skewed and loaded to get the results leftist activists want, check out:
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700187549/64-dont-support-gay-marriage-new-poll-says.html
Adam, laws of questionable constitutionality are subject to court review, including the determination of whether they are over- or under-inclusive in the achievement of their purpose. To say the public purpose of marriage is to promote procreation can't possibly be the purpose of marriage, since non-procreative couples can marry, and most sexual relations within marriage are NOT for the purpose of creating a baby.
There has to be some rationality to what a law says its purpose is, and the people affected by that law.
John claims that no one is "born" a polygamist. So what? If you develop an affection for multiple partners, why is that affection less legitimate than an affection that is allegedly inborn? How one acquires an affection should have no bearing on its legitimacy. For if in fact you believe that polyamory of any sort is illegitimate for the reason you offer, then why not close down gay bathhouses in which gay men often engage in orgies, since, according to your view, such activities are not the result of "inborn" attributes?
Moreover, by treating "inborn" as privileged over "acquired," you are assuming that there is something better about naturalness over artificial. But isn't that precisely what the gay rights movement denies? For if the natural takes precedence over the artificial, then one of the core reasons for marriage arising in the first place is because it is the only union that nature knows that can produce children. So, your "inborn" argument relies on intuitions that the gay rights movement denies.
If you're going to create a whole new world order, you can't borrow from the one you loathe.
you mean like how a federal marriage amendment would be "for the exception and not the rule"? so youre against that, right son of adam? good to know
In other words, insisting that only straight couples be allowed to marry is grossly over-inclusive, since so many straight couples can't or won't procreate, and under-inclusive, because many same-sex couples, especially lesbian ones, HAVE procreated (using artificial means, obviously) and they are still not permitted to marry in many states.
So if we allow a man to marry a woman, why not two women, or three, or five?
Non-procreative couples,just by being opposite-sex,set a good example for all others to follow,reinforcing a vital norm those who wrongly condone same-sex sexual relationships are trying to undermine.The non-procreative opposite-sex couples should be rewarded for setting that good example,just as same-sex couples should be prohibited from being treated as "the parents" of children because their relationship sets an inexcusably bad example by failing to be opposite-sex.
The elderly and infertile have a right to try to procreate, and that presumes a right to marry.
Baker v. Nelson would have credible merit of the supreme court had heard the case, but they didn't. Furthermore, the Nixon-era Baker v. Nelson holds little or no value as a precedent, as it has likely been superseded by more recent development. See: Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas
I agree that a same sex marriage law is a slippery slope leading to legalized polygamy.
However, whenever I pose the question, "why not more than two?" I am not making that argument, but I am making a different argument.
I am saying then that society needs to protect its moral authority, its culture, its identity, and its norms, by having its institutions reflect its own values, its own morality, its own respect for Christianity, and its own traditions rather than reflect extreme values that are alien to community, and harmful to the community if they were promoted.
So, the question is not whether two person marriage would slip into polygamy.
Its whether our moral, religious, and cultural identity is worth protecting, or if we should just let moral, religious, and cultural anarchy become the new norm.
The fact that infertile couples can marry does not render marriage laws unconstitutional or irrational. Most married heterosexual couples will produce children. Many infertile couples endure that condition only temporarily. Even an older, married, infertile couple can do something that no same-sex couple can do: raise a child with both a father and a mother. A same-sex couple, whether young or old, will never produce a child without some heterosexual assistance and will always lack either a father or a mother.
I repeat: Society doesn’t define fundamental rights based on every possible exception. When it comes to voting, we have a minimum voting age because we presume that adults are wiser and better informed than children. However, some adults are foolish, ill-informed, or even mentally incompetent, while some children are better informed and capable of making rational choices. Those exceptions to the rule do not make the voting laws arbitrary or unconstitutional.
Baker v. Nelson came to the U.S. Supreme Court under the policy of mandatory appellate review. That makes it a ruling on the merits.
My previous argument still stands, also.
Since the majority of high courts, and the U.S, Supreme Court disagree with your view of the 14th amendment, your "brush up" comment stands refuted.
Baker is still a valid precedent and its a major issue the 9th Circuit Court must deal with in the Proposition 8 case.
Besides, the link I provided showed the majority of high courts have rejected a right to same sex marriage since 2003, all of those cases occurred after Romer and Lawrence.
Santorum has rights and privileges all mixed up in his poor nervous mind. Privileges are paid for. Rights are granted automatically when you are born. And I might add, that all standard dictionaries show the word privilege to be defined as "a right".
Marriage is NOT a privilege, it's a right to every single person born. And the right to marry whomever we love, regardless of gender is ALSO a right.
Anyway, this is all just a waste of time, all right wing ideologists know that sooner or later same-sex marriage will be legal in all 50 states. Just a matter of time, folks, just a matter of time. It's already leaning that way, we just need a few more old zealots to die off and things will change for the better.
priv·i·lege (prv-lj, prvlj)
n.
1.
a. A special advantage, immunity, permission, right, or benefit granted to or enjoyed by an individual, class, or caste. See Synonyms at right.
b. Such an advantage, immunity, or right held as a prerogative of status or rank, and exercised to the exclusion or detriment of others.
2. The principle of granting and maintaining a special right or immunity: a society based on privilege.
Romer vs. Evans was problematic because the law overturned was very broad,but Lawrence vs. Texas was wrongly decided.There needs to be public policy that narrowly targets same-sex sexual relationships as harmful to the public interest and affirms the necessity to the general welfare of perpetually guaranteeing preferential treatment to opposite-sex relationships regardless of reproductive intent or capacity.
Polygamy has a cultural history as a form of marriage provided that all parties are not of the same sex,which would make the relationship not a marriage.
@Ieo,
That girl is a high school student. Although I admire her and believe she is brave, it doesn't make sense to say "Santorum is right because this high school student couldn't come up with a good response."
I am arguing the fact that Santorum used a slippery slope argument that is significantly different than gay marriage to prove his point. And I stated why it is significantly different.
Polygamy is a completely separate issue that shouldn't be debated alongside same-sex marriage because the process of legalizing it is substantially different than extending the same rights straight couples have to gay couples. Period.
Even said-Polygamy is a completely separate issue that shouldn't be debated alongside same-sex marriage because the process of legalizing it is substantially different than extending the same rights straight couples have to gay couples. Period.
Even- Same Sex marriages/relationships is a completely separate issue that should't be debated alongside opposite sex marriages because the process of legalizing substantially different than just extending the same right straight couples have to gave couples, Period....
Even you see how this works..? ...the same argument you make against group marriage and to falsely equate "pseudo marrage (SSM) with traditional marraige, can be apply, to the other side...
Rights and privileges aren't anything anyone arbitrarily declares, jonny. Supreme Court Justice Kagen herself has admitted that there is no right in the constitution to same sex marriage.
The arguments supporting the legalization of polygamy is the mirror image of supporting SS"M" and is the logical followup to the state imposed redefinition of marriage, no matter how much SS"M" advocates attempt to duck and dodge the issue. Just read the articles on this blog under "polygamy".
Even--That girl is a high school student. Although I admire her and believe she is brave, it doesn't make sense to say "Santorum is right because this high school student couldn't come up with a good response."
Even-you mean the high school student did'nt come up with in good answers in your opinion right?
There the female's answer was the appropriate one in immmaterial, here response to Rick's question about group marriage, has honest, and unpolitical response, which was enlightening on many levels...
1. SSM supporters mirrors the same bigot question thrown at religious groups.
2. SSM supporters have a sense of morality when it does not include condemning gay coupling.
3.She is a product of the gay indoctrination agenda for kids. Goes back the saying, " how will SSM harm us"? By using the weak and young minded to spread your false entitlement message by society and govt...
4.It is of greate importants that WE ALL, including SSAers, and SSRs make RICK SANTORUM THE NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATE OF AMERICA to get our country morally, and financial back on track for the next generation, PERIOD!
I be damn if my taxes go to support any activity deemed immoral by my God, and mother nature.
@bman
Under this logic, gay couples also have the right to try to procreate, and that presumes a right to marriage.
Attacking polygamy is the epitome of the strawman argument; rather than attack equal rights, people choose to use a slippery slope argument and attack a "Logical conclusion"
Was what Tiger Woods did a crime?
The Sixth Circuit explained what the right to marriage is.
Vaughn v. Lawrenceburg Power Sys., 269 F.3d 703 at 711 (6th Cir. 2001)
Kieran,polygamous relationships are a legitimate form of marriage that happen not to be part of our own culture,but same-sex relationships attack the entire purpose of marriage.There is no "equal right" to abuse an institution whose entire purpose is to guarantee preference to opposite-sex relationships to protect refusal to qualify for its most basic requirement.
I think treating "equal rights" as remotely relevant to the issue of same-sex "marriage" ought to be grounds for removing a judge from office.
Only if its a gay man and a gay woman!
That's a handy quotation.
Great post John Noe as you addressed the heart of the matter as it relates to singles.
The marriage licenses and the 1100+ benefits that come with it was justified to single people as incentives to procreate. Indeed without the benefit of procreation there is no justification for the granting of licenses and benefits as this would be grossly unfair to single people.
You do not tell single people that they do not get these benefits because they are incentives to procreate and then hand them over to same sex couples who purposely do not procreate.
Again this is unfair to single people.
You can't toss something out simply because its supported by religion.
The Constitution was originally written so the states each had the separate power not only to regulate marriage but to promote the Christian religion as well, with the federal government having no power to interfere in matters of religion.
Per Justice Story in his famous commentary on the Constitution, "....the whole power over the subject of religion is left exclusively to the state governments, to be acted upon according to their own sense of justice, and the state constitutions;”
In other words, the establishment clause restricted "Congress" from interfering with the right of the states to establish religion.
"Our founding fathers were very specific about the seperation of church and state. (You can argue this till your blue in the face, but it IS a historical fact.)"
Please show me where in either the US Constitution or the Declaration of Independance the "seperation of church and state" is mentioned or even hinted at? It is a false edict invented by activist judges in order to grant the government the power to dictate when we can and cannot worship God.
"The Constitution was originally written so the states each had the separate power not only to regulate marriage but to promote the Christian religion as well, with the federal government having no power to interfere in matters of religion."
Are you saying a state could mandate that you must be a Muslim by law?
Would it be reasonable to require every couple to marry in every state they might pass through, or risk being divorced of they cross the wrong state line? I went on a bike trip last year and drove through 8 states...how many marriage licenses should I have needed?
Single people have no use for the legal benefits of marriage, John N.! You really have no idea what you're talking about.
FabulousAnna, the GOP federal SS"m" ban will make the multiple marriage license issue moot. There will be only one marriage legally recognized in all states.
@ bman
That's not true at all. Two gay men have just as likely a chance (and sometimes just as much of a desire) to procreate with each other as does an infertile straight couple. According to you, no matter whether or not it's impossible, a couple still has the right to try to procreate, and that should imply the right to marry. Thus gay couples fit into that category.
A couple thoughts:
If marriage is privilege, then extending that privilege only to two consenting adults of opposite sex helps us to continue America being a place of the Privilege Class and those that do not deserve privilege (yes, I understand that gay men and women could marry opposite sex and live lives of deception and lies like they have throughout history but that is wrong ).
And working backwards, if extending marriage "privileges" to same sex couples only serves to open up polygamy as an option, then what did "tradition" marriage do to stop that? There have been many cultures and religions that accept polygamous relationships. And nobody has thought to outlaw "traditional" marriage.
Outlaw marriages, and there ends the argument.
Bryce,society has no reason to grant anyone the benefits of marriage unless it serves to guarantee preferential treatment to opposite-sex relationships.
FabulousAnna,until the 14th Amendment the states were technically free to have state religions,though none actually did so after the 1820s.Until then a few states singled out particular Christian denominations for subsidy,and there was no Federal barrier to their choosing Islam instead.
Spunky,marriage exists to unite males to females,any procreative consequences are secondary.
That would go beyond the legitimate power of government to regulate religion.
Below are some options Justice Story listed as to how a government might exercise power regarding religion:
I am saying the federal government had no Constitutional power to stop a state from practicing one of the three options above.
The Constitution privileged Christianity indirectly by leaving all power over matters of religion with the states, which were decidedly Christian.
The following link also provides excerpts from the different state constitutions of that era, Original State Constitutions
Here are a few examples:
My argument contains an unstated premise that prevents your counter-argument.
First, an analogy.
If a car cannot drive and we suppose it cannot be repaired, it can still be legally registered for use on public roads. It won't pass inspection, but that does not prevent it from being registered for driving on public roads.
However, a boat also cannot drive, but it can't be registered for use on public roads.
The car has "a right to try" to drive on public roads, as it were, and so it can be registered to drive.
The boat, however, does not have "a right to try "to drive on public roads, and so it has no right to be registered as a road vehicle.
If boats could speak, they could not say they have "a right to try" just because a small percentage of cars have "a right to try" that can't drive.
That's because "the right to try" is based on the class definition of cars and boats, and not based on their individual capacity.
Thus, when I said the elderly and infertile have a right to try to procreate, that did not give same sex couples the same right.
Opposite sex couples and same sex couples are two different classes of relationships each with different capacities and associated rights.
By definition, the opposite sex class can procreate. Their right to marry is based upon the class definition.
The right of an infertile couple to procreate and marry does not get taken away due to disability, because the right is based on the class to which they belong. They are like the car that can't drive but its still entitled to register to drive.
By contrast, the same sex class, by definition, has no ability to procreate and so they have no right to marry based upon procreation. They are like the boat that can't drive and has no right to try, even though the car that can't drive has right to try.
You might object by saying the car can be
registered because its always theoretically possible to repair it.
Actually its more a case where the drive-ability of the car is simply not checked for registration purposes. Yet, even though drive-ability was not checked for cars that would not not give boats a right to also register to drive.
So basically...gay people are a lesser class.
Kieran,more accurately,same-sex relationships are a lesser class of relationship.Criticism of behavior is not criticism of those who engage in it,but presupposes their having the capacity to learn from the criticism,which those prejudiced against the persons themselves would say they lacked.
SO you admit you're prejudiced? I'm confused.
That's an incorrect portrayal.
Disapproval of the gay lifestyle is how you should describe it.
me " was simply stating a fact. if people are interested in state sanctioned polygamy their first step is to have their behavior legalized
Michael Ejercito "Was what Tiger Woods did a crime?"
gosh Michael, you sure tripped me up there. wait, no you didn't - Tiger did not marry more than one person - ergo did not participate in a polygamist relationship - did not commit bigamy. do you now know that polygamy is? good lord - if you would like to defend an institution it is most helpful to understand what that institution is.
Tell me...what is the "gay lifestyle" bman? Please, elaborate. How is it different from other lifestyles?
For starters, see see http://www.cbn.com/spirituallife/BibleStudyAndTheology/Perspectives/StraightvGay.aspx
The happiness of a couple is also the ideological basis for DIVORCE, and specially no-fault divorce (except it turns out to be not the happiness of the same couple.)
Santorum is correct in that law is passed by rational discourse in the Legislatures, not sympathy, and every side of an issue is listened to, in law theory.
The inaudible question from the student was reduced to: People should be allowed to do whatever makes them happy (as long as they don't harm other people), because 'all men are created equal', and have a right to be happy.
To believe the argument as a basis for marriage between any two persons (minors too?) is to believe that it is a logical basis for the annulment of that same marriage, or all marriages (DIVORCE).
Therefore, the idea that same-sex civil marriage does not HURT opposite-sex civil marriage is logically shown to be unruly, even without considering the children that are born to a civil marriage or to any partnership (dual or polygamy).
The same concept (wisdom) applies - marriage regulation carries responsibilities, and therefore cannot possibly be simply for the happiness of the couple (their romantic love). For simple romantic relationships, WITH NO responsibilities, except those decided by the couple, we already have a legal category = friendships (and they come and go, freely). Friendships can break up, and the government imposes no regulation. One is just out of luck. It has no great Public Interest to do so, contrary to opposite-sex civil marriage.
The same emotional arguments of the same-sex civil marriage advocates, are possible arguments for DIVORCE. It doesn't 'hurt' (pain) other marriages? Logically, it does. If the ideas are adopted by the government, it totally destroys the ideological foundation of civil marriage.
That article at CBN doesn't really have much to say about lifestyle ... just some dumb repetition of that unfounded assertion that gay men are predatory, Oh, and apparently some fear that somebody's 9th gade son my catch gayness after seeing some gay men in his high school.
I can't see how any of that justifies the continuing social experiment going on in the US, in which a particular class is singled out for special rights and/or privileges.
@ bman
I disagree with your argument on so many points that I won't be able to fit it into a single post.
I can say the exact same thing about fertile opposite-sex couples and infertile opposite-sex couples. You have not shown why we should "class" relationships based on the sex of each member of the couple, whether or not we are talking about procreation.
I need to run, so this is all I can say now. But again, I have much more to say. Provide an email address (or email me @ blastroot@gmail.com) if you want to directly message. Or just wait a while, and I'll post more.
Kieran,you regard demanding preference be given to wise over unwise behavior as "prejudice"?
I said that those who were prejudiced against the "gay" would treat them as incapable of realizing the innate indefensibility of same-sex sexual behavior,rather than trying to convince them of it.
So you're not prejudiced because you're trying to convince them because their behavior is "indefensible?" Then what are you?
Although "you" can say that, its beside the point.
The issue is whether my comment - that the elderly and infertile have a right to try to procreate and to marry - reduces to giving same sex couples that same right.
You claimed it did and I denied that.
My comment did not reduce to that because the classification premise I mentioned applies.
Although you "can" propose a different classification, that is not the classification actually in use and so it does not affect my statement.
Is there some rule that says my statement must use the classification scheme you prefer instead of the one I mentioned that actually applies?
Clearly not.
Thus, my statement - that the elderly and infertile have a right to try to procreate which presumes a right to marry, did not give same sex couples the same right.
SSM is so wrong it will collapse under its own weight.
Its like veneer that peels away and then people realize its not real wood.
Its just a matter of time.
Can you see anything wrong with the behavior of the gay men in that link?
@bman
If you admit that your premise is arbitrary, then so is everything that follows from it. Making a logical argument means stating premises everyone agrees with and then producing a conclusion. But your premise is your conclusion. If you exclude gay couples from the beginning, then you're not making an argument, you're just stating a belief.
You are the one calling it arbitrary, not me.
In general, but in this case I am only required to satisfy the rules that apply to making a defense.
This is because you asserted a claim about my "right to try" statement.
Thus, the burden is on you to prove your assertion.
The burden is not on me to disprove it: "When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim." from "Philosophic burden of proof," Wikipedia.
I only need to defend against your assertion, and that is done by showing your assertion does not necessarily apply, or that its less probable than another option, which has been accomplished.
That is not the point we are dealing with.
We are dealing with your assertion that a right to try to procreate for opposite sex couples reduces to the same right for same sex couples.
I explained why that is not a necessary conclusion.
The burden is still on you, therefore, to prove your assertion.
@ bman
Using your logic, you didn't say anything wrong.
However, you have a) used a disputable assumption (something you admit) by separating couples based on the difference of sex and b) solely used that assumption to justify your conclusion, which is actually a restatement of your assumption.
By stating your "classification premise," you avoided contradiction, but you also failed to make a meaningful argument.
Since you never said I was wrong, I assume you agree with me on this.
Lets assume that the men were doing something wrong, that 9th grade boys ought not witness. OK.
I reject the inference that this behavior is an any way exclusive, universal, or even typical of gay men. STRAIGHT PEOPLE ALSO DO THINGS IN PUBLIC THAT 9th GRADE BOYS OUGHT NOT WITNESS!
AND
What in the WORLD does any of that have to do with whether or not gays should be denied the rights and responsibilities of marriage?
I take that to mean you now agree with the following two points:
1. The elderly and the infertile have a right to to try to procreate with each other that presumes a right to marry.
2. The right for opposite sex couples to try to procreate with each other, does not logically reduce to same sex couples having the right to try to procreate with each other.
@ bman
Given your unfounded assumption that same-sex and opposite-sex couples deserve different marriage rights, then yes.
Let me try to understand your logic:
1. SS and OS couples have different capabilities.
2. Thus, SS couples are excluded from marrying.
3. a) Fertile OS couples can procreate and thus have the right to marry.
3. b) Infertile OS couples can still try to procreate and thus have the right to marry.
4. Therefore, SS couples cannot marry, but OS couples can.
Is that your reasoning?
Really Spunky let me try to understand your argument
An infertile woman is just like a gay man.
Therefore if we let her marry a man we must let gay men marry a man.
Really?
@ maggie gallagher
I'm trying to understand bman's logic. He claims that procreation is the basis for determining marriage. He claims SS couples and OS couples are of a different class and then says "by definition, the opposite sex class can procreate. Their right to marry is based upon the class definition," even though this is wrong. (By definition, opposite-sex couples have one member of each sex--this does not imply the ability to procreate.) I want to figure out exactly why he does not want SS couples to marry. That's why I'm asking him if I understand his logic correctly.
While I basically agree with that, the wording is imprecise, and its premature to state the conclusion at point 2
Additional premises would need mention before that conclusion could follow from the premises, along this line:
(1) Procreative rights proceed from the design of nature. Law can not rationally recognize the right of a natural man to become pregnant by another man, for example.
(2) An essential purpose of government recognized marriage is to formally regulate and formally recognize the right of OS couples to have sex and procreate with each other.
(3)The reason government needs to regulate and recognize the right of OS couples to have sex and procreate is to manage population growth, and to prevent an exponential increase in unwed childbirths from exceeding the capacity of government to maintain ordered liberty. A serious decline in marriage between OS couples would pose a threat to ordered liberty through unwed child births, and so maintaining OS marriage rates is vital to the well being of the nation.
(4)Marriage rights proceed logically from the natural right of the OS class to procreate, and the natural right to procreate extends to all members of that class by default.
(5) If some members of the OS class are unable to procreate with each other, they do not lose their presumed right to procreate or to try. Their inability to procreate does not mean SS couples also have a presumed right to procreate with each other. By analogy, an undriveable car has a presumed right to drive on public roads and so it can be registered as a road vehicle despite the fact its undriveable, but that does not give an undriveable boat a presumed right to drive on public roads.
That dodges the question of whether you think they did something wrong.
By the way, several months ago I asked another gay supporter about that article and he saw nothing wrong with their behavior.
Why should I think his comment was not representative of the gay community but that your comment is?
While no one can say all gays behave like that, I think the burden of proof is on you and others who says its not representative of the gay community.
Your comment about "straight people" is not applicable either. Some straight people might engage in dissolute behavior, but straight people are not classified collectively as holding to counter moral sexual views, while the gay community is.
The gay community believes gay sex is acceptable, and so it typically holds a counter-moral view of sex by definition.
Its also rational for the public to think gay pride marches sponsored by the gay community represent the gay community.
The mayor of New York, for example, felt a need to order the non-enforcement of public decency laws during the recent gay pride parade there.
Would he also feel the need to do so for a Thanksgiving parade? Clearly not.
And why did former Toronto mayor Mel Lastman look back on his official participation in gay pride marches by saying he, “....could never get used to the two guys walking in front of me with their bare a--es sticking out.”</blockquote.
The gay community has a reputation for having dissolute sexual behavior and values that appears deserved.
The burden is on those who say the reputation is undeserved, therefore.
It comes down to which view of sexual morality should be represented by marriage.
@ bman
You need to specifically explain what you mean by "the design of nature" in (1). I have no idea what that means.
You also need to justify (1) altogether. Why can we assume that laws should be based on the "design of nature," (whatever that means)?
Again, I take issue with your primary assumption, and thus, everything that follows.
That looks like the ostrich defense to me.
@ bman
I don't know what that means either.
Look, you're starting off with an assumption that determines the entirety of your argument. Points (2)-(5) may be logically consistent, but they all depend on (1) and hence (5) is meaningless until you specifically state point (1).
I'd also add that your statement of (1) is so vague that you included an example in an attempt to explain. But I'm still confused.
After you explain (1) more thoroughly, you then need to justify it. So it probably shouldn't be your first point at all.
@ bman
I really don't know what you mean by "the design of nature." The design of what? The human body? Relationships? Sex? Help me out.
Putting that aside, assuming I understodd what (1) was actually saying, you still haven't explained why it's a legitimate assumption. Without this, I can disregard it and everything that follows. Which right now is what I choose to do until you address this.
@bman
You are a smart man. Marvelous.