Huntsman now supports same-sex marriage

[nehalem256]

Marriage could be seen as society OKing attempts to breed (though not an expectation that the couple MUST attempt to breed, particularly when such an attempt would be futile)

And there is obviously no need to OK attempts of homosexuals to breed. So as I said SSM inherently does not make sense.

It doesn't seem like a big difference. 1) Infertile couples can still marry, so your premise is wrong to start with. 2) The comment on bastard children makes no sense, because gay/straight is not a binary preference. Same-sex couples have the same concerns regarding bastard children as opposite sex couples.

(1) That would be a violation of people's medical privacy now wouldn't it . And on a more practical sense there is no 100% accurate test to determine fertility.

(2) So wait a minute. Are you arguing that "gay" people willingly engage in heterosexual sex? :hmm::hmm: That would seem to invalidate the idea that gay people cannot get married.

 

[alzan]

Okay, I will borrow the definition from the Catholic Church as a fairly good example of the traditional definition of marriage

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_(Catholic_Church)

"covenant by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring./quote]

So lets address this compared to the modern liberal definition of marriage.

(1) Is marriage between a man and a woman... no

(2) Is marriage a partnership of the whole of life.. no, people are free to divorce at any time for any reason

(3) Is it about procreation... clearly not

So how is the liberal definition of marriage similar to the traditional definition again?

No one organization religious or otherwise can solely claim or be given credit for defining a social construct. Society as a whole defines itself in terms of not only constructs and traditions but a host of other parameters. And surprisingly enough, society has abandoned traditions and redefined them many times in the past.

 

[GreenMeters]

And there is obviously no need to OK attempts of homosexuals to breed. So as I said SSM inherently does not make sense.

Why does it not make sense to you? Breeding is not the sole purpose of marriage--it doesn't even have to be any part of marriage.

(1) That would be a violation of people's medical privacy now wouldn't it . And on a more practical sense there is no 100% accurate test to determine fertility.

Suppose that it didn't, and there was. In your ideal world, would you advocate that an opposite-sex couple incapable of procreating should be prevented from marrying?

(2) So wait a minute. Are you arguing that "gay" people willingly engage in heterosexual sex? :hmm::hmm: That would seem to invalidate the idea that gay people cannot get married.

Some do. Those who do may identify as bisexual, they may identify as gay, doesn't matter. But the person they meet with whom they want to form a committed, lasting relationship may be of the same sex. And our society benefits from that stable union, therefore we incorporate it into our traditional understanding of marriage, and find that it fits quite well.

 

[actuarial]

And you cannot pair-bond without a relationship recognized by society? :hmm:

Complete straw man. Saying that something is meant to encourage certain behaviours is not the same as saying those behaviours would not exist without it.

Marriage exists because of pro-creation. Throughout history it has been assumed that procreation would occur within marriage, and that pro-creation outside of marriage was illicit.

And yet, ability to procreate has never in history been a prerequisite for marriage. Throughout most of history it was assumed you would marry someone of your own religion and your own race. Those actually were forced legally as well.

If pro-creation is inherently part of marriage, why do we allow childless marriages to continue?

Don't forget: same sex marriage exists. How could that possibly be if procreation is inherently part of marriage?

 

[actuarial]

Everyone does have the same right.

Everyone has the right to marry a single person of the opposite sex.

The government is not making any distinction between gay or straight individuals, but merely between gay and straight couples.

Billy Bob and Sally Sue* are also prohibited from marrying each other. And yet you don't see anyone crying about illegal discrimination in this case.


*assume Billy Bob and Sally Sue are siblings

Just like everyone used to have the right to marry a single person of the same race.

 

[werepossum]

Marriage is a social construct and is not 'inherently' anything. Traditionally, it has been lots of things that many previously would have deemed as an 'inherent' part of marriage that no longer applies.

Agreed. Traditionally, marriage has been between a man and a woman, but it's still a social construct as well as a covenant with G-d and a government institution. As a social construct, marriage is whatever we agree it is, regardless of its tradition, and while tradition is a fine thing to appreciate, like anything else it must evolve or stagnate. As a covenant with G-d, it's between G-d and those involved. And as a government institution, it should obey the principle of not discriminating without a compelling societal reason only satisfied by that discrimination.

It's a good op ed. Gary Johnson he ain't, but I think Huntsman would be a pretty decent President.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

You cannot just declare something marriage. That is an insane notion.

Are you stupid? How do you think terms are coined in the first place? Do you think someone "discovered" marriage?

I think the lack of an answer is all the answer we need, here.

 

[soulcougher73]

I wish i could wear rose colored glasses 24x7 like Nehalem256. Oh wait no i dont. I enjoy the real world. Dont you get tired of being on the losing side of every topic?

 

[Carfax83]

Marriage is not a requirement for procreation. Procreation is not a requirement for marriage. Marriage does not exist 'because' of procreation.

Marriage exists because pair bonding positively impacts society (regardless of the presence of children) and also positively impacts raising children. Ability to procreate is not a prerequisite for raising children.

While you're correct for the most part, I think you're downplaying the importance of procreation in marriage; particularly from a historical perspective.

Marriage was established first and foremost to establish and continue bloodlines. Pair bonding and it's positive impact is simply an added benefit..

In evidence, legitimate instances of gay marriage are almost unknown throughout history. Even in cultures that tolerated homosexuality to various degrees (ie Rome and Greece), marriage was still limited to male and female pairs..

This is because until recently, the notion of same sex marriage was absurd because the primary purpose of marriage has always been the establishment and continuance of bloodlines.

If the primary purpose of marriage was "pair bonding" as you claim, then homosexual marriage would have been far more common throughout history..

Nowadays, people marry mostly because they love each other (or think they do) and children may or may not enter into the equation, so the idea of same sex marriage is no longer as ridiculous as it once sounded.

 

[nehalem256]

Okay, I will borrow the definition from the Catholic Church as a fairly good example of the traditional definition of marriage

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_(Catholic_Church)


No one organization religious or otherwise can solely claim or be given credit for defining a social construct. Society as a whole defines itself in terms of not only constructs and traditions but a host of other parameters. And surprisingly enough, society has abandoned traditions and redefined them many times in the past.

Okay, I will borrow the definition from the Catholic Church as a fairly good example of the traditional definition of marriage

Now where did I make this claim. In fact I pretty clearly stated it was an EXAMPLE.

 

[nehalem256]

Complete straw man. Saying that something is meant to encourage certain behaviours is not the same as saying those behaviours would not exist without it.

And yet, ability to procreate has never in history been a prerequisite for marriage. Throughout most of history it was assumed you would marry someone of your own religion and your own race. Those actually were forced legally as well.

Are you suggesting they had advanced fertility testing 500 years ago?

If pro-creation is inherently part of marriage, why do we allow childless marriages to continue?

(1) Practical grounds. How long would you have to produce a child? How do you know children won't occur in the future?

(2) It still controls procreation and prevents bastard children from occurring.

(3) A childless heterosexual marriage is not immediately obvious as being different.

(4) Historically it has not been an issue. And no one has even thought about going back and restricting marriage.

Just like everyone used to have the right to marry a single person of the same race.

I covered this earlier. There is a difference between saying that a relationship is a marriage, but is wrong, and saying that a relationship is not marriage.

For example. It would be within the definition of marriage for a 40 year old man to marry a 10 year old girl. It would of course also be wrong.

 

[nehalem256]

While you're correct for the most part, I think you're downplaying the importance of procreation in marriage; particularly from a historical perspective.

Marriage was established first and foremost to establish and continue bloodlines. Pair bonding and it's positive impact is simply an added benefit..

In evidence, legitimate instances of gay marriage are almost unknown throughout history. Even in cultures that tolerated homosexuality to various degrees (ie Rome and Greece), marriage was still limited to male and female pairs..

This is because until recently, the notion of same sex marriage was absurd because the primary purpose of marriage has always been the establishment and continuance of bloodlines.

If the primary purpose of marriage was "pair bonding" as you claim, then homosexual marriage would have been far more common throughout history..

Nowadays, people marry mostly because they love each other (or think they do) and children may or may not enter into the equation, so the idea of same sex marriage is no longer as ridiculous as it once sounded.

Basically correct I think. People no longer really believe in marriage. They like the idea of having a "special" relationship and therefore apply the word marriage to non-marital relationships.

 

[actuarial]

Are you suggesting they had advanced fertility testing 500 years ago?

No, but we do now, and yet no one has made that part of the definition.

(1) Practical grounds. How long would you have to produce a child? How do you know children won't occur in the future?

(2) It still controls procreation and prevents bastard children from occurring.

(3) A childless heterosexual marriage is not immediately obvious as being different.

(4) Historically it has not been an issue. And no one has even thought about going back and restricting marriage.

(1) is identifiable in many cases (menopause, for one). (2) - Allowing SSM does not reduce this effect. (3) - So a marriage with children is not obviously different from one without, and yet procreation is an inherent part of marriage? (4) - Well clearly those who want to protect what marriage is all about aren't doing a very honest job about it, are they? And you are incorrect - in many places where SSM exists people are trying to restrict the current definition of marriage.

I covered this earlier. There is a difference between saying that a relationship is a marriage, but is wrong, and saying that a relationship is not marriage.

For example. It would be within the definition of marriage for a 40 year old man to marry a 10 year old girl. It would of course also be wrong.

Your response is completely tangential. I'll remind you what you said:

Everyone does have the same right.

Everyone has the right to marry a single person of the opposite sex.

The government is not making any distinction between gay or straight individuals, but merely between gay and straight couples.

Billy Bob and Sally Sue* are also prohibited from marrying each other. And yet you don't see anyone crying about illegal discrimination in this case.

*assume Billy Bob and Sally Sue are siblings

You are claiming that allowing people to only marry a member of the opposite sex is not gender discrimination.

Well, then allowing people to only marry a member of the same (or different) race is not racial discrimination. Everyone has the right to marry a single person of the same race.

The government is not making any distinction between white or black individuals.

If you want to argue that there's a governmental interest in discriminating in this case, then make that argument, but don't pretend that the discrimination does not exist.

And for your example, Billy Bob and Sally Sue are discriminated against. You have failed to identify what protected class is being discriminated against (because there isn't one), so until you do it is completely irrelevant to the discussion from a legal perspective.

 

[actuarial]

Basically correct I think. People no longer really believe in marriage. They like the idea of having a "special" relationship and therefore apply the word marriage to non-marital relationships.

They simply no longer believe in YOUR idea of marriage.

Marriage is as society defines it.

 

[actuarial]

While you're correct for the most part, I think you're downplaying the importance of procreation in marriage; particularly from a historical perspective.

Marriage was established first and foremost to establish and continue bloodlines. Pair bonding and it's positive impact is simply an added benefit..

In evidence, legitimate instances of gay marriage are almost unknown throughout history. Even in cultures that tolerated homosexuality to various degrees (ie Rome and Greece), marriage was still limited to male and female pairs..

This is because until recently, the notion of same sex marriage was absurd because the primary purpose of marriage has always been the establishment and continuance of bloodlines.

If the primary purpose of marriage was "pair bonding" as you claim, then homosexual marriage would have been far more common throughout history..

Nowadays, people marry mostly because they love each other (or think they do) and children may or may not enter into the equation, so the idea of same sex marriage is no longer as ridiculous as it once sounded.

My intent was not to downplay it's importance from a historical perspective (because it was very important), it is more to show that it is not an absolute requirement.

We moved past so many aspects of historical 'primary' purposes of marriages, that holding on to this one as the one inalienable truth is silly, especially when people don't make an honest effort towards that ideal. Holding that up as the reason for not allowing SSM reeks of making an convenient point.

If you want to hold procreation as the key to marriage fine, but advance that ideal in an honest manner. Attack all marriages that don't fit the definition. Don't simply use it to attack one type of marriage you're uncomfortable with.

(I am not accusing you personally of this).

 

[Paratus]

Nehalem will never directly admit this but denial of SSM is strictly gender discrimination.

I've said it before Alice and Bob can receive a marriage license after marrying in church or elsewhere. Alice an Betty cannot even after marrying in a church or elsewhere.

The only difference is Betty's gender.