Objective Standard of Marriage: Includes mono-gender: Defend it from Polygamy...

[PubliusInfinitum]

PI, it would have been sufficient to say you didn't understand my post and ask for clarification rather than post a wall of text to explain in detail that you didn't understand it.

There is no way in hell I'm going to read your novel. I've skimmed the first and last of it for any intelligible bits. It appears that you decided to jump to the position that the only rights available to people are their inalienable rights and no other rights are either available or legitimate.

Is that your position?

LOL... suit yourself Tech...

I find it odd that you reject my post on the basis of its depth, after I took the time and energy to provide you with my full and complete thoughts on the issue; thus serving you a courtesy, through having taken your position seriously.

There is nothing in your post which is not fully understood... if you feel that I've misreprented your positon; Fine... state your greivance...

The only true rights are the inalienable rights which stem from life... all other civil rights; rights born of the social contract, merely serve as government protections, which defend specific circumstances where, for whatever reason, the constitution failed to do so... Suffrage is one example; protections for racial minorities another...

But none of those rights GRANT rights... the government doesn't have the authority to grant rights to anyone; as the government is comprised of human beings whose rights are precisely the same as everyone else... They're not endowed with SUPER - RIGHTS... just because they're holding a position of the public trust. The government possesses one element which establishes the potential for superiority over the individual and one only; and that is POWER.

But that power, does not provide them the means to grant valid and sustainable rights to anyone; distinct of course from government sponsored privilege, which are valid only to the extent of that government's means to project sufficient power to provide for such.

For instance, where the government might provide the privilege for a citizen to reign control over a given segment of the population, that privilege goes right along with it.

In contrast to the valid and sustainable inalienable rights which are possessed by the individual without regard to whether or not a government protects such and are sustained by the individuals defense of them.

My right to defend myself, my life and family... I don't require the government protect this right... as I will take action to do so without regard to the governments position and where the government contests my right I will take action to defend myself from that government's infringement of that right... if such results in my demise I depart this earth with my rights intact...

Now if you fail to consider this argument; that does not devalue the argument, it merely provides that you've no desire to consider it; the reasons known only to you and any contest which you make to this argument is rendered moot by your failure to consider it.

I'd like to see you explain to the court someday, that you aren't going to read the wall of text the State brought against your client... and see how that works for ya...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

PI, you like to type (or paste) but your actual argument leaves much to be desired.

You really fail to supprt your claims, which is unsurprising considering the illogic of your passion.


Regardless, prohibiting polygamy would not stand up to any logical court challenge, neither would prohibition of same-sex marriage. Attempting to legislate the kinds of consensual relationships adults can engage in is fruitless and arrogant.

If everyone on this board decided they wanted to sleep with each other, live together, spend time together in various couplings, groups, trysts, etc. then they likely would. Passing a law that says who you can be with (again, we're talking about consensual adults) is not going to do anything, and the onus of proving any legitamacy to these laws is on the 'authority' that tries.

Cultures often evolve - don't be so afraid.

LOL...

Preventing polygamy has never failed to stand up in this nation... I see an emphatic assertion that such is not the case, but I don't see an argument wherein you've cited a case where polygamy has prevailed... the only means by which polygamy could hope to succeed is the 'FAIRNESS' argument which the sexual deviancy herd is presently using in their present litany of failures.

Such an argument is logically invalid, intellectually unsound and rests upon an irrational understanding of fairness, wherein fairness is 'felt' to be analogous to equality... it is not. Equality bears fairness... fairness does not bear equality.

The standard of Marriage does NOT 'Attempt to legislate the kinds of consensual relationships adults can engage in'... it establishes minimum standards by which couples who apply for Marriage are required to meet; the essence of which; is that TWO individuals who represent the two distinct genders are required for such.

Thus Polygamy is not suited for marriage... and there is no well reasoned, logically valid argument which could argue otherwise.

It is true that cultures tend to evolve, but no culture has ever evolved through devolution...

 

[Ravi]

Pubic,

I accept your concession.

Dismissed.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Well, here we have yet another EPIC FAIL by Pubic.

He was asked a question three times and three times he was too much of a coward to answer it.

LOL... What I love about these obtuse little farces, that the least amongst us seem incapable of resisting is just how easy they are to refute...

Ravi... you claim that I've been asked a question three times and that due to a lack of courage, that I've failed to respond to that thrice prosed query...

Would you be so kind as to post, through a specific citation of the posts wherein that question was thrice posed?

I'm not aware of such being the case; perhaps I missed those questions... or perhaps you're just lying to project a delusional deception upon this board.

Pubic,

I accept your concession.

Dismissed.

Do ya? Well BULLY for you... just skip the whole validity thing and go with the projected DELUSIONAL DECEPTION... SWEET! That must save you a LOT of time and energy...

But... Here's the problem with that: What is it, EXACTLY, that ya feel that I've conceded?

And as always, I'd ask that you be as specific as your intellectual limitations allow.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

WOW! Ravi... That is SOME intellectual limitation ya have there...

Tell me, given this severe limitation, do you 'feel' that this in any way is fair evidence that you're not qualified to participate in public discource? And would such also be indicative that you should never consider adding your ill-equipped consideration to a an election?

If not, why not?

 

[Ravi]

You are apparently either too cowardly to answer my question or too lazy to scroll back and see what it was...either way, I've grown bored with this topic. You failed once again to make a convincing case.

 

[mattskramer]

"IF" they weren't sexual deviants... then they would meet the standard maintained by Marriage... But of course they ARE; which means that their special circumstance precludes their viability, their suitability. for marriage...

What is the special circumstance - that they happen to be of the same sex? Big deal.

and its not for the standard to change to meet them; it is for THEM to change to meet the standard; you see Skippy... that is the function of standards... they establish MINIMUM thresholds of performance, behavior or what have you, which determines who will and who will NOT participate; and that someone feels that the standard is not FAIR... is IRRELEVANT.

The standards and definition of marriage has changed throughout the centuries. Recall my list. There is no real reason why it can't change again.

But again... Homoseuxals aren't interested in loving, committed relationships, where they cohabitate, set us a house-hold, love and support one another... and forming a single, distinct LEGAL entity, which provides economic privileges... because they don't have to be married to do ANY of that.

Again, you resort to mind-reading and generalizing. I can just as easily say that Christians are not interested so much in a personal relationship with god and salvation as they are in threatening abortion providers and harassing people who are not Christian.

What they want is the LEGITIMACY which marriage provides... which Marriage will NOT provide, when the standard of Marriage is redefined to include anything...

As I said before, the definition of marriage has practically been changed before.

With regard to the Carpet muncher who couldn't visit her 'significant other'... what's your point? She's not married to her 'most special friend'... and she apparently didn't bother to incorporate, establishing clear and unambiguous, legally binding interests between the two of them, which carries with it the same legally binding element as a marriage license.

Please show a little bit of class. Deep loving relationships involve more than just sex. Crass name-calling is unnecessary. Perhaps heterosexuals should simply be called "fuckers". Secondly, the lesbians shouldn't have to go to a lawyer. A simple official civil union certificate - much lime a marriage license - should suffice and cover practically all circumstances. Consider these:

Access to Military Stores
Assumption of Spouse’s Pension
Bereavement Leave
Immigration
Insurance Breaks
Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Social Security Survivor Benefits
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Tax Breaks
Veteran’s Discounts
Assumption of Spouse’s Pension
Automatic Inheritance
Automatic Housing Lease Transfer
Bereavement Leave
Burial Determination
Child Custody
Crime Victim’s Recovery Benefits
Divorce Protections
Domestic Violence Protection
Exemption from Property Tax on Partner’s Death
Immunity from Testifying Against Spouse
Insurance Breaks
Joint Adoption and Foster Care
Joint Bankruptcy
Joint Parenting (Insurance Coverage, School Records)
Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
Certain Property Rights
Reduced Rate Memberships
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Visitation of Partner’s Children
Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison
Wrongful Death (Loss of Consort) Benefits

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Well, here we have yet another EPIC FAIL by Pubic.

He was asked a question three times and three times he was too much of a coward to answer it.

LOL... What I love about these obtuse little farces, that the least amongst us seem incapable of resisting is just how easy they are to refute...

Ravi... you claim that I've been asked a question three times and that due to a lack of courage, that I've failed to respond to that thrice prosed query...

Would you be so kind as to post, through a specific citation of the posts wherein that question was thrice posed?

I'm not aware of such being the case; perhaps I missed those questions... or perhaps you're just lying to project a delusional deception upon this board.

Pubic,

I accept your concession.

Dismissed.

Do ya? Well BULLY for you... just skip the whole validity thing and go with the projected DELUSIONAL DECEPTION... SWEET! That must save you a LOT of time and energy...

But... Here's the problem with that: What is it, EXACTLY, that ya feel that I've conceded?

And as always, I'd ask that you be as specific as your intellectual limitations allow.

You are apparently either too cowardly to answer my question or too lazy to scroll back and see what it was...either way, I've grown bored with this topic. You failed once again to make a convincing case.

ROFLMNAO... Now that's just SAD! So... CLEARLY... you can NOT cite ANY actual question, which you othereise DEMAND has gone unanswered...

Gee.. Now I wonder why that is?

My guess is that you desperately need to imply the delusion for the DECEPTION to work... that if you actually WERE TO CITE THE POSER, TO WHICH YOU REFER, you know that I would just go back and cite the NUMEROUS responses; flushing in finality this latest rhetorical turd to the great repository of left-think...

But of course time and the certainty of reason will tell... where you return to post an actual unanswered question... Your point stands; where you fail to do so... your point fails... The odds of probability that you will prevail? 10... (to infinity):1

But good luck with that...

 

[mattskramer]

ROFLMNAO... Now that's just SAD! So CLEARLY... you can NOT cite ANY actual question, which you othereise DEMAND has gone unanswered...

Did you answer my question concerning the consumption of drugs? Why should we allow people to smoke tobacco at all? Isn’t tobacco unhealthy? The same applies to alcohol? Why did we set minimum age limits where we did? Why not set them one year younger or older? If we allow people to drink alcohol, then why not allow them to smoke marijuana? Don’t you understand that practically everything is relative and subject to change as we, as a nation, progress in our understanding and tolerances?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

ROFLMNAO... Now that's just SAD! So CLEARLY... you can NOT cite ANY actual question, which you othereise DEMAND has gone unanswered...

Did you answer my question concerning the consumption of drugs? Why should we allow people to smoke tobacco at all? Isn’t tobacco unhealthy? The same applies to alcohol? Why did we set minimum age limits where we did? Why not set them one year younger or older? If we allow people to drink alcohol, then why not allow them to smoke marijuana? Don’t you understand that practically everything is relative and subject to change as we, as a nation, progress in our understanding and tolerances?

Is tobacco or other drugs at issue? I wasn't aware that they were? Thus where such is used as a means to derail the discussion, such may well have been deemed irrelavant...

But since you've chosen to take a stand on it.. why not...

Matt... You seem to be saying that ANY standard, wherein one issue is negated as acceptable and another seemingly similar issue is deemed acceptable, that the function of establishing standards is relegated to invalid...

But here's the thing... Standards, by their very nature, as is their purpose, establish that one issue, thing, person or what have you, will be deemed inappropriate... thus prohibited... that such standards do not rise to a level of perfection, does NOT provide that such is unacceptable... as while that imperfection is obvious, the exponentially greater imperfection which would result from the absence of standards is even more obvious... and while those who are unable to cross those established thresholds may be disatisfied with their being denied participation, through their inability to meet those standards... such is NOT cause to remove or lower them to accomodate their insufficiency...

Drugs and Booze are subject to abuse... Booze however is in effect ONE substance, the precitable results of which are limited to the effects of that substance... DRUGS on the other hand are multiple substances, which exponentially increase the problems associated with their greater numbers...

Do people addle themselves through the abuse of alchohol as they do through the use of recreational and prescription drugs? Of course... but your argument that to be FAIR... the culture should open the standard of acceptance to ALL substances or close acceptance to NO substance is absurd... as to open the acceptance to all, one simply sets the certainty of greater problems... and to close it entirely, subjects the culture to unreasonable government controls... thus the appropriate response is to seek a balance wherein we limit the acceptable substances to that which is deemed the most reasonable...

Again... not perfection and not satisfactory to every member of the culture... but the idea is to provides the means to balance the necessary standards to accommodate maximum individual freedom, with in the end, a minimum number of predictable consequences...

As I've stated many times... I'd be all for opening Pardora's stash... IF and when the left closes down EVERY FORM OF SOCIAL ENTITLEMENT WHICH WOULD SUBSIDIZE THOSE WHO ADDLE THEMSELVES... NO subsidy to assist THEM, No subsidy to assist their FAMILY, INCLUDING THEIR CHILDREN...

And as I write that... I believe that I did respond to this point, and what's more.. through essentially the same point. Perhaps not; perhaps it was a different thread, but I think it was this thread and it was your poser...

Anywho... does that cover it for ya?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

"IF" they weren't sexual deviants... then they would meet the standard maintained by Marriage... But of course they ARE; which means that their special circumstance precludes their viability, their suitability. for marriage...

What is the special circumstance - that they happen to be of the same sex? Big deal.

Uh Yeah... and while it may not BE a "big deal" it is THE DEAL, which established SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES... and which disqualifies them for MARRIAGE, which REQUIRES that there be TWO HUMAN INDIVIDUALS... and that BOTH represent the TWO Distinct HUMAN GENDERS. So while it may not be a big deal over at the condo... it's a big deal at the threshold established by the standards which preclude such...

and its not for the standard to change to meet them; it is for THEM to change to meet the standard; you see Skippy... that is the function of standards... they establish MINIMUM thresholds of performance, behavior or what have you, which determines who will and who will NOT participate; and that someone feels that the standard is not FAIR... is IRRELEVANT.

The standards and definition of marriage has changed throughout the centuries. Recall my list. There is no real reason why it can't change again.

LOL... Well sure... and the standards were changed in a vacuum... Right? The old standard of pre-arranged marriage was set aside for no reason, right? Not because the concept of inalienable, individual rights... RIGHT?

Changes which INCREASE the standard, on sound basis are GOOD... Changes which come to LOWER the standard on specious grounds... such as FAIRNESS... BAD!

But again... Homosexuals aren't interested in loving, committed relationships, where they cohabitate, set us a house-hold, love and support one another... and forming a single, distinct LEGAL entity, which provides economic privileges... because they don't have to be married to do ANY of that.

Again, you resort to mind-reading and generalizing. I can just as easily say that Christians are not interested so much in a personal relationship with god and salvation as they are in threatening abortion providers and harassing people who are not Christian.

Well generalizations are soundly applied where general principle is sustained... That the Homosexual lobby is intent upon revising Marriage as a means towards realizing their ENDS... is proof certain of the principle; this buttressed by the decided disregard by the same lobby for a new institution which serves the same ends and doesn't infringe upon the existing standard...

What they want is the LEGITIMACY which marriage provides... which Marriage will NOT provide, when the standard of Marriage is redefined to include anything...

As I said before, the definition of marriage has practically been changed before.

And if your position was intellectually sound, logically valid and stood on a well reasoned foundation, it would be a great point; but sadly, for you... that position has been refuted and what's more, ON THIS particular point... Let the record reflect that this thread is a discussion which rest on the proposition that the homosexual lobby's demand to redefine marriage would merely 'tweak' the present standard and would in NO OTHER WAY, otherwise effect such: TO WHICH I SIMPLY ASKED THE ADVOCATES OF SUCH TO DEFEND THEIR NEW STANDARD AGAINST THE CONTEST BY THE NEXT LOGICAL CONTESTENT, THE POLYGAMISTS...

Now would you care to cite, EVEN ONE POST ON THIS THREAD FROM EVEN ONE KNOWN ADVOCATE OF THE NEW PROPOSED STANDARD WHICH SEEKS TO DEFEND THAT STANDARD FROM FURTHER CONTEST? I can show you NUMEROUS POSTS, where such advocates have ADHERED TO THE ACCEPTANCE OF POLYGAMY, WHEREUPON THE PROPOSED STANDARD IS YET AGAIN ADJUSTED TO ACCOMMODATE, YET ANOTHER DEVIANCY... but there is not a SINGLE DEFENSE of the proposed standard, BY A SINGLE ADVOCATE WHICH COMES TO SIMPLY "ADJUST THE STANDARD" to accommodate their 'special circumstances... and would defend that standard from further adjustments...'

Now Matt... If the advocates to 'adjust the standard to accommodate their special circumstances' are not even INTERESTED in TRYING to defend the NEWLY adjusted standard... doesn't that tend towards indicating that they've NO INTENTION TO DEFEND THE STANDARD? That they're position that the standard should be adjusted to merely accommodate their 'special circumstances', is a deception; that their ACTUAL position is to ABOLISH THE VERY IDEA THAT A STANDARD SHOULD EVEN EXIST?

I believe it does...

With regard to the Carpet muncher who couldn't visit her 'significant other'... what's your point? She's not married to her 'most special friend'... and she apparently didn't bother to incorporate, establishing clear and unambiguous, legally binding interests between the two of them, which carries with it the same legally binding element as a marriage license.

Please show a little bit of class. Deep loving relationships involve more than just sex. Crass name-calling is unnecessary. Perhaps heterosexuals should simply be called "fuckers".

What a delicious irony; a leftist calling for standards to be recognized, even as she laments the existence of standards... Exquisite!

Secondly, the lesbians shouldn't have to go to a lawyer. A simple official civil union certificate - much lime a marriage license - should suffice and cover practically all circumstances. Consider these:

Access to Military Stores
Assumption of Spouse’s Pension
Bereavement Leave
Immigration
Insurance Breaks
Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Social Security Survivor Benefits
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Tax Breaks
Veteran’s Discounts
Assumption of Spouse’s Pension
Automatic Inheritance
Automatic Housing Lease Transfer
Bereavement Leave
Burial Determination
Child Custody
Crime Victim’s Recovery Benefits
Divorce Protections
Domestic Violence Protection
Exemption from Property Tax on Partner’s Death
Immunity from Testifying Against Spouse
Insurance Breaks
Joint Adoption and Foster Care
Joint Bankruptcy
Joint Parenting (Insurance Coverage, School Records)
Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
Certain Property Rights
Reduced Rate Memberships
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Visitation of Partner’s Children
Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison
Wrongful Death (Loss of Consort) Benefits

Gee Matt... what a GREAT point THAT IS... It reminds me of a similar point which I personally have made THOUSANDS OF TIMES over the last nearly FOUR DECADES... and a DOZEN TIMES ON THIS THREAD; along with DOZENS on it's sister thread... the most recent of which is THIS ONE:

she apparently didn't bother to incorporate, establishing clear and unambiguous, legally binding interests between the two of them, which carries with it the same legally binding element as a marriage license.

Ya see Matt... a non-marital Civil Union, is nothing more than INCORPORATION; constructed around and designed towards the accommodation of the special circumstances presented by the sexual deviant...

It's not Marriage, thus it does not provide for the legitimacy of Marriage; it's a simple business transaction, which provides for legal obligations and other legally binding commitments wherein two or more parties are recognized as ONE legal entity, bound together through the binding umbrella of the corporation; which provides for the parties to establish the rules by which their association will operate and the scope and parameters which they feel are essential to the pursuit of their common goals and aspirations...

 

[Tech_Esq]

All rights that don't infringe on the rights of others are inalienable. That is how I read the constitution.

The government isn't established to thwart rights...it is established to guarantee that everyone's rights are protected.

I don't find a discussion of "unalienable rights" in the Constitution. I do find one in the Declaration of Independence. "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness..." True, the language is "among these" indicating there is more than just the three.

I must admit to being confused by the interplay of government in your concept though. Initially, it sounded like you were saying that the rights, later guaranteed by government, always existed. That would mean that contrary to the language in the Declaration, "that to preserve these rights Governments are instituted among men....," up until the passage of the 19th amendment, the Government thwarted that right.

But you said that Government doesn't thwart rights, they guarantee rights. So now I'm adrift again. Prior to the passage of the 19th amendment, how was government not thwarting the right of women to vote that you say is an inalienable right granted by their Creator?

They were thwarting the rights of women. But that doesn't mean that thwarting was the function of the government. It simply means the government acted wrongly.

btw, I didn't say the government doesn't ever thwart rights...hell, it does it all the time. But that is not the purpose of the government, at least not our government. In reality the 19th amendment should not have been necessary.

Sorry for the break. I actually had to work...

But, in the meantime I've educated myself on the origin of rights as a function of the social contract. Not that I was uninformed, but we can always learn more. Obviously, the issue I was most confused about was the interplay between the completely free individual endowed with free will and living in John Locke's state of nature (as opposed to Thomas Hobbes' state of nature which is a wholly different thing), and when that free individual signs the social contract and becomes a part of a given society.

So, I turned to the same person the founders did (aside from Rousseau), William Blackstone. Luckily, he was able to explain to me the disconnect I was having. So that now I understand the nature of the rights held by the individual in the state of nature is:

This natural liberty consists properly in a power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, unless by the law of nature; being a right inherent in us by birth, and one of the gifts of God to man at his creation, when he endued him with the faculty of free will.

But when a person becomes a part of society, his rights become more limited because:

But every man, when he enters into society, gives up a part of his natural liberty, as the price of so valuable a purchase and, in consideration of receiving the advantages of mutual commerce, obliges himself to conform to those laws, which the community has thought proper to establish.

So, in the context of our conversation about newly found rights such as women's suffrage, we can say that had their been a need for women to vote in the state of nature, they would surely have had it, however being alone, it would have been of little use. Upon joining the social contract (by proxy of men), women agreed to give up their ability to vote to purchase safety and security. Thus:

And this species of legal obedience and conformity is infinitely more desirable than that wild and savage liberty which is sacrificed to obtain it. for no man, that considers a moment, would wish to retain the absolute and uncontrolled power of doing whatever he pleases; the consequence of which is, that every other man would also have the same power; and then there would be no security to the individuals in any of enjoyments of life.

So, the return of the liberty that had been deprived by the society which initially viewed the deprivation of the liberty (voting of women) necessary to the continuance and growth of the civil society, has now grown in understanding and is under the current belief that women's suffrage does not damage or undermine that civil society we all have agreed to live in.

Here's the meat of it then, and I'll take this part bit by bit:

Political ... liberty, which is that of a member of society, is no other than natural liberty so far restrained by human laws (and no farther)

This, Ravi, is at the heart of what you were saying, I believe. So, only the rights that existed in the state of nature as modified by the constraints of living in a civil society exist. Ok, now I'm tracking.

... as is necessary and expedient for the general advantage of the publick.

So, Blackstone is saying the constraints on liberty that exist in the civil society are "necessary and expedient" for that society to exist and thrive. But, that's not the end.

Hence we may collect [conclude] that the law, which re strains a man from doing mischief to his fellow citizens, though it diminishes the natural, increases the civil liberty of mankind;

Blackstone argues here that reduction of natural liberty to do mischief to others stands in equipoise to the increase in civil liberty of the society. In other words, civil society is better off because you may not rob me, even though that limits your freedom. Ok, I can get with that.

but that every wanton and causeless restraint of the will of the subject, whether practiced by a monarch, a nobility, or a popular assembly, is a degree of tyranny; nay, that even laws themselves, whether made with or without our consent, if they regulate and constrain our conduct in matters of mere indifference, without any good end in view, are regulations destructive of liberty;

Now, we get to what the topic of this thread is. Whether restriction of people of the same sex to marry one another is a "wanton and causeless restraint" and thus a degree of tyranny. Or, whether the opposite is true:

whereas if any public advantage can arise from observing such precepts, the control of our private inclinations, in one or two particular points, will conduce to preserve our general freedom in others of more importance; by supporting that state, of society, which alone can secure our independence

So, under Blackstone's concept of civil liberty, the question favoring the prevention of same sex marriage is whether public advantage may come from the restriction. If there is public advantage in it, then it is legitimate to restrict in the name of preserving and advancing the civil society.

My consequent analysis, now that Ravi, PI and I are all speaking the same language, it this:
In favor of the restriction of the liberty: The current institution of marriage advances the goal of a thriving civil society by the promotion of largely self sustaining and supporting family units having the capacity to pro-create (again generally speaking). Creating a legitimate family unit that does not have (generally speaking) all of these same attributes, would not advance the civil society as well, and therefor should be restricted under the law.

In favor of the newly unrestricted liberty: The new family unit created by allowing same-sex marriage legitimizes units that existed outside the law. When the units existed outside the law, the civil society was damaged in that the unit was prevented from being as self sustaining as might have been the case by laws which did not recognize the existence of the unit. Since no other unit existed in fact, it led to distortions of law and effect which did not exist in the rest of society. Had the same effects been felt in rest of society, laws would have been changed to address the disparity.

Since all members of the civil society are equal under the social contract that created the society, having laws that create disparate effects on equal partners in the contract should be disfavored in the law. Thus, laws should be repaired to correct the disparate effects.

By creating a new type of family unit, legitimized under the law, it meets the interest of the civil society by creating yet another self sustaining (nuclear) unit that is within the law instead of outside the law. Having units exist outside the law should be disfavored where ever possible.

Based on a balance of the equities, I believe that same-sex and poly relationships should be legitimized absent some REAL showing of damage to the civil society. I think there is clear damage having these relationship exiting outside the civil society. The burden is on PI to show the damage of having these relationships recognized.

 

[mattskramer]

she apparently didn't bother to incorporate, establishing clear and unambiguous, legally binding interests between the two of them, which carries with it the same legally binding element as a marriage license.

Ya see Matt... a non-marital Civil Union, is nothing more than INCORPORATION; constructed around and designed towards the accommodation of the special circumstances presented by the sexual deviant...

It's not Marriage, thus it does not provide for the legitimacy of Marriage; it's a simple business transaction, which provides for legal obligations and other legally binding commitments wherein two or more parties are recognized as ONE legal entity, bound together through the binding umbrella of the corporation; which provides for the parties to establish the rules by which their association will operate and the scope and parameters which they feel are essential to the pursuit of their common goals and aspirations...

Okay. You win. Actually I'm tired of arguing. I also have so many other commitments and responsibilities that I can't keep track of this thread. Also, I guess that I didn't understand what you meant by incorporation. In conclusion, would you support there being civil-union status (at state and/or federal levels) for gay couples? If so, then I think that I could stop short of supporting gay MARRIAGE.

By the way, I was not calling for standards. I was just asking for a little civility and politeness. Go ahead and be rude and crude. I just think that it is nice when people can agree to disagree without being so disagreeable.

 

[KittenKoder]

PI's entire argument hinges on deviancy, yet he himself is a sexual deviant in so many ways, so if what he is contending was the basis for law, he would lose all his rights as well.

 

[Tech_Esq]

PI's entire argument hinges on deviancy, yet he himself is a sexual deviant in so many ways, so if what he is contending was the basis for law, he would lose all his rights as well.

OH! this sounds good! What's he do?

 

[KittenKoder]

PI's entire argument hinges on deviancy, yet he himself is a sexual deviant in so many ways, so if what he is contending was the basis for law, he would lose all his rights as well.

OH! this sounds good! What's he do?

Meh, I'll let him open his own mouth, which will be a feat since he already stuck his foot in it.

 

[Tech_Esq]

PI's entire argument hinges on deviancy, yet he himself is a sexual deviant in so many ways, so if what he is contending was the basis for law, he would lose all his rights as well.

OH! this sounds good! What's he do?

Meh, I'll let him open his own mouth, which will be a feat since he already stuck his foot in it.

I hope he appreciates my wall of text. Actually, mine's kind of broken up into bricks. So I guess it's a brick wall of text.

But, at least we are deriving the arguments from foundational principles, so that's something.

 

[KittenKoder]

OH! this sounds good! What's he do?

Meh, I'll let him open his own mouth, which will be a feat since he already stuck his foot in it.

I hope he appreciates my wall of text. Actually, mine's kind of broken up into bricks. So I guess it's a brick wall of text.

But, at least we are deriving the arguments from foundational principles, so that's something.

Most of what he posts to counter mine are just rants and poor attempts to insult, I suspect he'll fall into that pattern with you to once he finishes reading it, if he actually reads it all.

 

[Ravi]

I don't find a discussion of "unalienable rights" in the Constitution. I do find one in the Declaration of Independence. "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness..." True, the language is "among these" indicating there is more than just the three.

I must admit to being confused by the interplay of government in your concept though. Initially, it sounded like you were saying that the rights, later guaranteed by government, always existed. That would mean that contrary to the language in the Declaration, "that to preserve these rights Governments are instituted among men....," up until the passage of the 19th amendment, the Government thwarted that right.

But you said that Government doesn't thwart rights, they guarantee rights. So now I'm adrift again. Prior to the passage of the 19th amendment, how was government not thwarting the right of women to vote that you say is an inalienable right granted by their Creator?

They were thwarting the rights of women. But that doesn't mean that thwarting was the function of the government. It simply means the government acted wrongly.

btw, I didn't say the government doesn't ever thwart rights...hell, it does it all the time. But that is not the purpose of the government, at least not our government. In reality the 19th amendment should not have been necessary.

Sorry for the break. I actually had to work...

But, in the meantime I've educated myself on the origin of rights as a function of the social contract. Not that I was uninformed, but we can always learn more. Obviously, the issue I was most confused about was the interplay between the completely free individual endowed with free will and living in John Locke's state of nature (as opposed to Thomas Hobbes' state of nature which is a wholly different thing), and when that free individual signs the social contract and becomes a part of a given society.

So, I turned to the same person the founders did (aside from Rousseau), William Blackstone. Luckily, he was able to explain to me the disconnect I was having. So that now I understand the nature of the rights held by the individual in the state of nature is:


But when a person becomes a part of society, his rights become more limited because:


So, in the context of our conversation about newly found rights such as women's suffrage, we can say that had their been a need for women to vote in the state of nature, they would surely have had it, however being alone, it would have been of little use. Upon joining the social contract (by proxy of men), women agreed to give up their ability to vote to purchase safety and security. Thus:


So, the return of the liberty that had been deprived by the society which initially viewed the deprivation of the liberty (voting of women) necessary to the continuance and growth of the civil society, has now grown in understanding and is under the current belief that women's suffrage does not damage or undermine that civil society we all have agreed to live in.

Here's the meat of it then, and I'll take this part bit by bit:

This, Ravi, is at the heart of what you were saying, I believe. So, only the rights that existed in the state of nature as modified by the constraints of living in a civil society exist. Ok, now I'm tracking.


So, Blackstone is saying the constraints on liberty that exist in the civil society are "necessary and expedient" for that society to exist and thrive. But, that's not the end.



Blackstone argues here that reduction of natural liberty to do mischief to others stands in equipoise to the increase in civil liberty of the society. In other words, civil society is better off because you may not rob me, even though that limits your freedom. Ok, I can get with that.

but that every wanton and causeless restraint of the will of the subject, whether practiced by a monarch, a nobility, or a popular assembly, is a degree of tyranny; nay, that even laws themselves, whether made with or without our consent, if they regulate and constrain our conduct in matters of mere indifference, without any good end in view, are regulations destructive of liberty;

Now, we get to what the topic of this thread is. Whether restriction of people of the same sex to marry one another is a "wanton and causeless restraint" and thus a degree of tyranny. Or, whether the opposite is true:

whereas if any public advantage can arise from observing such precepts, the control of our private inclinations, in one or two particular points, will conduce to preserve our general freedom in others of more importance; by supporting that state, of society, which alone can secure our independence

So, under Blackstone's concept of civil liberty, the question favoring the prevention of same sex marriage is whether public advantage may come from the restriction. If there is public advantage in it, then it is legitimate to restrict in the name of preserving and advancing the civil society.

My consequent analysis, now that Ravi, PI and I are all speaking the same language, it this:
In favor of the restriction of the liberty: The current institution of marriage advances the goal of a thriving civil society by the promotion of largely self sustaining and supporting family units having the capacity to pro-create (again generally speaking). Creating a legitimate family unit that does not have (generally speaking) all of these same attributes, would not advance the civil society as well, and therefor should be restricted under the law.

In favor of the newly unrestricted liberty: The new family unit created by allowing same-sex marriage legitimizes units that existed outside the law. When the units existed outside the law, the civil society was damaged in that the unit was prevented from being as self sustaining as might have been the case by laws which did not recognize the existence of the unit. Since no other unit existed in fact, it led to distortions of law and effect which did not exist in the rest of society. Had the same effects been felt in rest of society, laws would have been changed to address the disparity.

Since all members of the civil society are equal under the social contract that created the society, having laws that create disparate effects on equal partners in the contract should be disfavored in the law. Thus, laws should be repaired to correct the disparate effects.

By creating a new type of family unit, legitimized under the law, it meets the interest of the civil society by creating yet another self sustaining (nuclear) unit that is within the law instead of outside the law. Having units exist outside the law should be disfavored where ever possible.

Based on a balance of the equities, I believe that same-sex and poly relationships should be legitimized absent some REAL showing of damage to the civil society. I think there is clear damage having these relationship exiting outside the civil society. The burden is on PI to show the damage of having these relationships recognized.

Wow...a rational discussion on one of Pubic's threads...I'm going to have to digest this one for a bit...I don't think I disagree with what you've posted but I'll need to read it a few times.

 

[Ravi]

Upon further review, Tech, I think we are on the same page. My only misgiving with your post is that it seems to put the rights of society ahead of the rights of the individual. Under our constitution I don't think you can make a case that the rights of society outweigh the rights of the individual as guaranteed by the constitution.

Otherwise we'd have a true democracy and mob rule.