Is Western culture being destroyed?

[Coyote]

The rule of law is based on logic.

The benefits that should be accorded to same-sex unions must ALSO be based on logic.

A married woman is accorded maternity leaves. Do you accord maternity leaves to men in gay unions as well?

In general - I agree. Benefits I'm thinking of include taxes, healthcare, pensions, hospital visitation for immediate family etc.

About maternity....I don't know. Some countries accord "family leave" to husbands who's wives had babies...sometimes it's shared. I know of married woman who got "maternity leave" upon adopting a baby.

What about lesbian women?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality_before_the_law

According to the eminent Austrian economist Friedrich Hayek, equality before the law and material equality are incompatible, arguing that material inequality is a natural consequence of legal equality: "From the fact that people are very different it follows that, if we treat them equally, the result must be inequality in their actual position, and that the only way to place them in an equal position would be to treat them differently. Equality before the law and material equality are therefore not only different but are in conflict with each other; and we can achieve either one or the other, but not both at the same time".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law

The rule of law, in its most basic form, is the principle that no one is above the law. The rule follows logically from the idea that truth, and therefore law, is based upon fundamental principles which can be discovered, but which cannot be created through an act of will.

I did not ask about material equality, please read my post more closely, I said "legal equaltiy" as in equal protection under the law.

 

[9sublime]

Wait... numinus why do you care so much if gays get married, even if you can pick semantic holes in the definition of marriage?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullity_(conflict)

Impotence or willful refusal to consummate

This is an aspect of the general legal topic of capacity, and it affects essential validity because, in many states, the policy is that marriage is for the procreation of children. Thus, if one spouse has a permanent physical condition at the time of the ceremony which prevents sexual intercourse, this may void the marriage, make the marriage voidable, or require a divorce decree.

This only allows one of the people in the marriage to escape if they discover that their partner is sterile. In no instance does it allow the State to annul a marriage.

The willful refusal by one party to consummate the marriage will not usually be a ground for annulment since this is a question of behaviour rather than capacity and so becomes a matter for divorce. Given the improvement in medical science, the number of conditions producing impotence which cannot be treated with some degree of success is declining. Hence, most modern legal cases must now rely on the ground of the affected party's willful refusal to seek remedial treatment and deal with the case to reflect the fact that the marriage has not been consummated. The fact that one of the parties may be infertile and so cannot produce children is not relevant under this heading although it may be relevant if specific representations have been made to induce the marriage and so affect the validity of consent.

Have it ever occured to you that if you know no such marriages, then perhaps you are merely ignorant about the marriage institution?

Consummate means perform the sex act, there is no demand for progeny. Yes, of course it occured to me that I might simply be ignorant of such marriage vows or requirements, but no one else has posted any either and I'm willing to be that if YOU knew of any that you would post them so you could gloat. My objection stands, there is no requirement for progeny.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

"...he is right - what other logical reasons for marriage are there?" "I can't refute Numinus' logic."

But Numinus (if I understand him) is arguing from the standpoint of the primary reason - throughout history - for marriage - establishing a family. That is logical and it is accurate.

We need to clarify whether we are saying that the only "logical" reason to marry is progeny OR
We are saying that progeny is the primary reason for marriage.

A primary reason for something in no way invalidates the secondary or tertiary reasons for that activity WHEREAS
If there is no other logical reason to marry then that would invalidate other reasons since they would not be logical.

These are two very different statements and you need to tell me which we are attempting to agree upon please.

 

[Coyote]

We need to clarify whether we are saying that the only "logical" reason to marry is progeny OR
We are saying that progeny is the primary reason for marriage.

A primary reason for something in no way invalidates the secondary or tertiary reasons for that activity WHEREAS
If there is no other logical reason to marry then that would invalidate other reasons since they would not be logical.

These are two very different statements and you need to tell me which we are attempting to agree upon please.

The latter: We are saying that progeny is the primary reason for marriage.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Which ever way we end up defining this discussion it seems to me that the laws should apply equally to all. Yes?

If progeny is the be-all and end-all of our accepted definition of marriage as set forth in law, then I will be willing to accept that, PROVIDED

That it applies to all consenting adults equally. Any two people who cannot have children on their own with no help from others CANNOT marry. Any two people who choose not to have children CANNOT marry. If two people marry in good faith and then discover that they cannot have children then their marriage will annuled by the State. Further, once a woman passes menopause and can no longer have children, her marriage will be annuled as soon as her youngest child reaches the age of majority. And of course no one who adopts children can marry on that basis either since Nums has already ruled that out as a basis for homosexual people to marry. I will accept equality because it's logical, selective laws however are not logical and they abrogate the Constitutional equal protection clause.

In light of the fact that nearly 1/3 of all American marriages are childless, I think that marriage will become much less of an institution since so many people will denied its benefits.

As long as the law applies to all, then I'm alright with it.

Lying by omission is still lying. Where Nums' religion comes in is that he apparently believes that the only people who should be targeted under the progeny law are homosexuals. Everyone else gets a free-pass. This is bigotry based on Christian-hate as set forth in the scriptures.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

The latter: We are saying that progeny is the primary reason for marriage.

Good, the primary reason, does that then logically deny the validity or value of any secondary or tertiary reason why people marry?

Well, it IS logical - but again, logic isn't everything and people often don't act in accordance to what is logical. Marriage for love is relatively recent in the history of marriage. Many marriages were for political and property alliances rather than love or companionship and that has nothing to do with the church. However, these days - most marriages in western society are dictated by individual preferences and affections.

This quote by you would suggest that down through history the secondary and tertiary reasons were well accepted and in some cases became the PRIMARY reason to marry. When a King married to gain land or cement an alliance it often didn't matter if the bride was fertile.

But Numinus (if I understand him) is arguing from the standpoint of the primary reason - throughout history - for marriage - establishing a family. That is logical and it is accurate.

This quote suggests that it is tradition rather than logic that impels us to continue doing what we have done in the past. I have yet to see any logical reason why homosexual people getting married would have ANY impact on the institution of marriage or the fecundity of anybody. Have you?

As times change we have to change with them. Women have traditionally been owned by the males in their families (still are in much of the Middle East) because that's traditional, does that make it sacrosanct in some way? Yes, it does if--like Nums--you are coming from a religious standpoint. All down through history we have tried to make the world better and more fair, we have laws now which outlaw things that used to completely accepted, things that were traditions of long-standing--slavery comes to mind, the selling of children, burnt offerings to the gods, public hangings, and on and on.

Perhaps the logic works to our favor. If a third of marriages in the US are childless, the world is overloaded with people, and there is no logical reason for not allowing homosexual people to marry, then why not move with the times?

In all of the stuff that Nums has posted has there been a single valid, logical reason why you think homosexual people should not be allowed to marry?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

The rule of law is based on logic.

The benefits that should be accorded to same-sex unions must ALSO be based on logic.

A married woman is accorded maternity leaves. Do you accord maternity leaves to men in gay unions as well?

Maternity leave is based on the need for caring for a new child. In the law this can apply to a new-born or an adopted child. Therefore, if gay men adopted they would be eligible for maternity leave.

I realize this bothers you, but even we restrict it to women only, then we're still going to give it to lesbians. And what about the Father whose wife dies in child birth but the baby survives? Will you deny "maternity leave" to a man just because he's a man? No, I'll bet that you wouldn't, so once again it's a narrowly focused attack on gay men. Jesus H. Christ, Nums! What is with your hard-on for gay guys?

 

[numinus]

In general - I agree. Benefits I'm thinking of include taxes,

Taxes are related to the imperative of state protection for the family. I'm sorry but it does not logically follow for gay men to have tax breaks by simply deciding to live together.

The only way that gay men are able to start a family is through adoption. Adoption is NOT a right but a privilege -- regardless of one's gender. The state is not obliged to give tax breaks on this. In fact, one's ability to provide the necessities of the children you adopt is a requirement for it.

healthcare,

The same reasoning.

A woman has the right to motherhood that the state needs to protect. When a woman decides that the best way to be a mother is to stay at home and care for her family, then such a choice must be protected without prejudice.

There is no such right to motherhood for gay men. If they want healthcare, then they would have to pay for it just like the rest of us.

pensions,

Again, same reasoning.

hospital visitation for immediate family etc.

There is no reason why a homosexual union cannot incorporate a document that would extend this privilege to one's partner.

Besides, the hospital policy to limit visitors to patients is there for the benefit of the patient. Medical emergencies are handled better if non-essential personnel are kept to a minimum.

about maternity....I don't know. Some countries accord "family leave" to husbands who's wives had babies...sometimes it's shared.

Exactly. A woman needs at least a week of rest and recuperation after a natural child birth. Longer if its a c-section. Naturally, the husband is expected to do everything. I should know. Both my children are cs.

I know of married woman who got "maternity leave" upon adopting a baby.

And you find this logical?

Caring for children, imo, is a full-time career. I don't even know how women can cope with this and still have a full-time day job. At some point, one must accept the fact that one or both would suffer under this condition.

What about lesbian women?

What about them?

 

[numinus]

I did not ask about material equality, please read my post more closely, I said "legal equaltiy" as in equal protection under the law.

And for equal protection under the law, the fundamental difference between genders must be upheld.

Example:

Right to motherhood for women -- no right to motherhood for men.

Rights of children for children -- no rights of children for adults.

Duh?

 

[numinus]

Wait... numinus why do you care so much if gays get married, even if you can pick semantic holes in the definition of marriage?

Quite frankly, I don't.

What do you care if people get away with politically-correct nonsense designed to give undeserved benefits to a particular group of a particular lifestyle, hmmm?

 

[numinus]

This only allows one of the people in the marriage to escape if they discover that their partner is sterile. In no instance does it allow the State to annul a marriage.

Nonsense.

It defines the marital institution that the state is obliged to protect -- the point at which a personal choice enters the public domain.

Capice?

Consummate means perform the sex act, there is no demand for progeny. Yes, of course it occured to me that I might simply be ignorant of such marriage vows or requirements, but no one else has posted any either and I'm willing to be that if YOU knew of any that you would post them so you could gloat. My objection stands, there is no requirement for progeny.

And the only way that sex between two consenting adults enter the public domain is when it produces children.

Duh?

 

[numinus]

Maternity leave is based on the need for caring for a new child. In the law this can apply to a new-born or an adopted child. Therefore, if gay men adopted they would be eligible for maternity leave.

I realize this bothers you, but even we restrict it to women only, then we're still going to give it to lesbians. And what about the Father whose wife dies in child birth but the baby survives? Will you deny "maternity leave" to a man just because he's a man? No, I'll bet that you wouldn't, so once again it's a narrowly focused attack on gay men. Jesus H. Christ, Nums! What is with your hard-on for gay guys?

The logic for paid maternity leave IS FOR THE MOTHER TO RECUPERATE FROM CHILDBIRTH.

It extends to paid paternity leaves since the father is needed to take care of his family until his wife is up and about.

In what realm of common sense do you mandate maternity/paternity leaves if NO ONE GAVE BIRTH, eh?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Nothing new, Nums, same tired rhetoric. And twice you have dodged the Constitutional equal protection clause, so I'm going to assume that unequality under the law is acceptable to you as long as you are on the winning side.

Once again you have dodged the question about lesbian women's rights, and the rights--or lack of--for sterile couples or couples who decide not to have children.

Instead you are totally focused on making sure that gay men don't get rights of which you have judged them undeserving. This is a religious defense of a tradition, which espouses inequality based on judgments of person's worth. Your dismissal of adopted children is a case in point.

Gosh, Nums, a religious elitist, who would have thought it possible? Cap'n Trips on another site is just like you, he said that it was necessary for heterosexual couples to have special rights under the law or they wouldn't procreate anymore. Well, several countries have legalized homosexual marriages and a couple of States as well, so you and the queen better stop having sex because the world is ending. I don't necessarily think you should feel too bad about being stuck in the 15th century, Christianity as a monolithic entity has had be dragged kicking and screaming into the present all down through its history. Every civil rights movement has been opposed by the conservative factions of the church who don't want anything to change. The end of feudalism and monarchies, recognition that women have souls, recognition of the rights of indigenous people's everywhere, ending the persecution of Jews, women's right to own property, women's right to vote, rights of people with other religions, ending slavery, equal rights for people of color,...even the surgical repair of birth defects is opposed. It's a long and ugly list, Nums, you have a lot of company in spitting on the egalitarian teachings of Jesus.

But just remember George Wallace standing on the steps of that school stating that there would NEVER be integration. What people like you do is make the church and the teachings of Jesus look irrelevant because you are so upset that someone might get something that you think they don't deserve that you have no time left for the strenuous work that YOUR Savior demanded of you. Nice going, Nums.

I won't even try to argue you fallacious definitions, they too are the same old nonsense you've been posting.