• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

GOP steers clear of gay marriage issue

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
So the rules aren't codification of the religious institution, but rather what we believe the religious institution should be doing? Either it follows the rules of the religion or it doesn't, and marriage in the legal sense does not have the same rules as marriage in the religious sense. It may be based on the religious rules, but we have long since accepted that the legal definition of marriage can deviate from the religious definition of marriage.
It IS the codificatoin of a religious institution, just not the Catholic one. It is based on the evangelical Christian view which the vast majority held when the government was created a few hundred years ago.


You used the fact that a law was based on a religious rule as a reason to throw out the law. I am just showing that that line of reasoning doesn't hold up.
It is called having a compelling state interest. If there is a compelling state interest, the state is allowed to legislate for or against religious institutions. There is no compelling state interest to change a religious institution when the government can simply shift to using civil unions for all instead. There is a compelling state interest in preventing people from sacrificing chickens and swinging them over their heads out in their front yeards (though they are allowed to do it indoors provided they maintain cleanliness standards).

The state has determined that children are harmed by seeing naked people (not sure how they determined this, but that is for another thread anyway), so their laws about not being naked in public, while based on religion, also have a compelling state interest and therefor are legal.

There is no compelling state interest to stop polygamy, though. Limit the size of the union, yes, but not prevent it at all. Yet it is illegal...so that is another one which should be removed.
 

actuarial

Platinum Member
Jan 22, 2009
2,814
0
71
It IS the codificatoin of a religious institution, just not the Catholic one. It is based on the evangelical Christian view which the vast majority held when the government was created a few hundred years ago.
So the legal rules of marriage encompass every and all rules imposed by evangelicals at the time marriage was instituted?

It is called having a compelling state interest. If there is a compelling state interest, the state is allowed to legislate for or against religious institutions. There is no compelling state interest to change a religious institution when the government can simply shift to using civil unions for all instead. There is a compelling state interest in preventing people from sacrificing chickens and swinging them over their heads out in their front yeards (though they are allowed to do it indoors provided they maintain cleanliness standards).

The state has determined that children are harmed by seeing naked people (not sure how they determined this, but that is for another thread anyway), so their laws about not being naked in public, while based on religion, also have a compelling state interest and therefor are legal.

There is no compelling state interest to stop polygamy, though. Limit the size of the union, yes, but not prevent it at all. Yet it is illegal...so that is another one which should be removed.
You whole premise is that the word marriage is owned by religion, but we've long moved past that. Government can get involved in marriage because it is a societal institution with a religious history.

You can point out that Christmas originated with many of the same traditions as the winter solstice, but that doesn't make it a pagan institution.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
So the legal rules of marriage encompass every and all rules imposed by evangelicals at the time marriage was instituted?

You whole premise is that the word marriage is owned by religion, but we've long moved past that. Government can get involved in marriage because it is a societal institution with a religious history.

You can point out that Christmas originated with many of the same traditions as the winter solstice, but that doesn't make it a pagan institution.
Funny how Japan and China seem to also use the same set of rules as evangelical christians to define marriage in their countries.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
So the legal rules of marriage encompass every and all rules imposed by evangelicals at the time marriage was instituted?
I do not know, I was not living in the US at that time.

You whole premise is that the word marriage is owned by religion, but we've long moved past that. Government can get involved in marriage because it is a societal institution with a religious history.
Not in the US. In the US, the government put the force of law behind a religious institution. It simply is how our nation formed.

What is the compelling state interest to change the religious institution instead of simply moving to civil unions for all?
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
What is the compelling state interest to change the religious institution instead of simply moving to civil unions for all?
Because it is still not civil unions for all.

Liberals still want to discriminate against:

Polygamy
Incest
Bestiality
Single people

While claiming they are opposed to discrimination.
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,908
402
126
Because it is still not civil unions for all.

Liberals still want to discriminate against:

Polygamy
Incest
Bestiality
Single people

While claiming they are opposed to discrimination.
It is clear that you do not understand the nature of discrimination in the context of the prohibition of same-sex marriage.

Hint: it isn't discrimination against homosexuals.

Hint #2: barring polygamy, incest and bestiality is not discrmination any more than barring thievery is discrimination. Everyone is equally prohibited from those things, dummy.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
It is clear that you do not understand the nature of discrimination in the context of the prohibition of same-sex marriage.

Hint: it isn't discrimination against homosexuals.

Hint #2: barring polygamy, incest and bestiality is not discrmination any more than barring thievery is discrimination. Everyone is equally prohibited from those things, dummy.

I agree, currently, everyone is allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex...and there is no protected right to marry someone you love. What they are doing is fighting for the creation of new rights while not caring about the other groups.
 

actuarial

Platinum Member
Jan 22, 2009
2,814
0
71
Not in the US. In the US, the government put the force of law behind a religious institution. It simply is how our nation formed.

What is the compelling state interest to change the religious institution instead of simply moving to civil unions for all?
Then just abolish that law, create a new union called marriage and have it apply based on the social definition? Just because religion uses the word marriage to mean one thing doesn't mean the state cannot have a function which also uses the word marriage to define it.

You rail against people who don't want all the benefits of marriage simply because it's called a 'civil union' but you are guilty of the exact same focus on the word used rather than the function.
 

actuarial

Platinum Member
Jan 22, 2009
2,814
0
71
I agree, currently, everyone is allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex...and there is no protected right to marry someone you love. What they are doing is fighting for the creation of new rights while not caring about the other groups.
So as long as everyone is allowed to marry someone of the same race it's not racial discrimination?

Here's an easy test to see if you are discriminating based on gender (or anything else). Can you answer the question of 'Can Jamie marry Peyton?' without asking a question about their gender?
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,292
120
106
Because it is still not civil unions for all.

Liberals still want to discriminate against:

Polygamy
Incest
Bestiality
Single people

While claiming they are opposed to discrimination.
Horrible reasoning skills.

This is why you stay in school kids!
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
So as long as everyone is allowed to marry someone of the same race it's not racial discrimination?

Here's an easy test to see if you are discriminating based on gender (or anything else). Can you answer the question of 'Can Jamie marry Peyton?' without asking a question about their gender?
So by not allowing bestiality liberals are discriminating right.

After all you cannot answer the question of 'Can Billy marry Spot?' without having to ask questions about gender or species.
 
Nov 29, 2006
14,500
2,210
126
It is an extra-Biblical addition. Adding things is allowable, removing required things is not. This is why it is also fine the state added a minimum age.

Since it appears you do not know the Biblical rules (not a slam, just an observation), I will give you a brief overview.

Marriage must be between a human man and a human woman, as sexually immoral acts are forbidden. Homosexual sex is a sexually immoral act, beastiality is a sexually immoral act.
Marriage must not be between a brother and sister or a child and parent. This is considered to be a sexually immoral act.

There is much debate about polygamy and the Bible. The New Testament does not forbid it from the general population, but only forbids it from those who wish to be in a leadership position in the church. Common view says no to polygamy, but it is not as clear cut as many believe. This was an add on to the rules because the common person demanded it. Since it does not violate the required rules, it is ok.
That is all nice and dandy, but we dont follow Biblical rules as the rule of law of the country. They are 2 seperate things that may take parts from one another and have some similarities, but christanity needs to get its nose out of the governments ass and let the government do what it thinks is best for the whole country.
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,292
120
106
So then liberals in favor of discriminating against incest, polygamy, and bestiality.

Why are they such bigots?
Again. You use very poor reasoning and logic skills.

You conflate the issue. That is a logical fallacy

gay marriage has nothing to do with incest, polygamy, and/or bestiality.

Only people that employ poor reasoning like to think so.
 

actuarial

Platinum Member
Jan 22, 2009
2,814
0
71
So by not allowing bestiality liberals are discriminating right.

After all you cannot answer the question of 'Can Billy marry Spot?' without having to ask questions about gender or species.
Not allowing bestiality is discrimination based on species, as species other than humans are not allowed to legally enter a contract. There is no equal rights given to all species, so this is perfectly legal discrimination.

And yes, I can answer 'Can Billy marry Spot?' without having to ask their genders.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
Again. You use very poor reasoning and logic skills.

You conflate the issue. That is a logical fallacy

gay marriage has nothing to do with incest, polygamy, and/or bestiality.

Only people that employ poor reasoning like to think so.
The liberal argument for gay marriage is that not allowing it is discrimination, and that discrimination is wrong.

Therefore pointing out other groups who are discriminated against with regards to marriage is quite important.

Why are liberals only fighting some discrimination?
 
Nov 29, 2006
14,500
2,210
126
Funny how Japan and China seem to also use the same set of rules as evangelical christians to define marriage in their countries.
Yeah those are 2 countries we should emulate o_O

Maybe the US should try and be the better country for personal freedoms.
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,292
120
106
Not allowing bestiality is discrimination based on species, as species other than humans are not allowed to legally enter a contract. There is no equal rights given to all species, so this is perfectly legal discrimination.

And yes, I can answer 'Can Billy marry Spot?' without having to ask their genders.
I wouldnt engage in this argument.

"Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience"
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,908
402
126
I agree, currently, everyone is allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex...and there is no protected right to marry someone you love. What they are doing is fighting for the creation of new rights while not caring about the other groups.
False.

There is no "creation" of any rights. People are already guaranteed equal rights under the Constitution, and a prohibition of same-sex marriage is in fact the denial of that guaranteed right.

If Jane has the right to marry Steven, but John does not have the right to marry Steven, then Jane and John do not have equal rights. Ceasing to prohibit John from marrying Steve is not creating a new right. It is extending a right that already exists to a class of people who have been guaranteed equal protection yet denied it.

Neither Jane, nor John, nor Steven have the right to be polygamists, incestuous, or copulate with animals, and everyone is denied that right equally.

You are at war with the facts, and quite frankly it is as amusing as it is pathetic.
 
Last edited:

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
Yeah those are 2 countries we should emulate o_O

Maybe the US should try and be the better country for personal freedoms.
Marriage is not a matter of personal freedom. Marriage is about giving up personal freedom for the good of society by creating a new stable family to raise children. In return for giving up this freedom you receive certain benefits.
 
Nov 29, 2006
14,500
2,210
126
The liberal argument for gay marriage is that not allowing it is discrimination, and that discrimination is wrong.

Therefore pointing out other groups who are discriminated against with regards to marriage is quite important.

Why are liberals only fighting some discrimination?
When the time comes their is enough support and logical reasoning to not discriminate against polygamy and incest we can tackle that topic at that time.

For now just stick to the issue of gay marriage please. The strawman is getting tired.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY