Ok, the last thread was closed and I don't want that to happen to this thread.
But, since many people have insisted that their opposition is not based on religion, I would like to ask for one of them to present their argument.
And I mean, an argument, using logic, reason, and accepted premises.
This does not include:
---I heard from someone that gays carry lots of diseases, therefore they shouldn't be allowed to marry.
---I read in the bible that its an abomination, therefore...
---We've had thousands of years of (religious) tradition where marriage is a man and a woman....
Or any other argument based on religion or personal disgust, or hatred.
Is there any logical argument to prevent people from exercising free association via marriage?
And to concede pax's points from the other thread (I think it was her) lets presume that marrying someone in your family, or someone underage, is already prohibited.
I'd also be interested in hearing of these "peer-reviewed" studies that rock jock claims to have.
And finally, since threads like this get out of control, I would like to ask for the moderators to either censure, edit, or otherwise enforce the rules here without closing the thread. As long as some people are sticking on the topic and not violating the rules, please leave this thread open and just address the ones who are violating the rules. I don't like the fact that it seems someone can parachute in and describe gay sex in graphic detail and stop everyone else from being able to talk about the subject by getting the thread closed.
To start, here's my argument. I'd love if if people followed a similar form for counter:
1. Premise: The country was founded on the right of "life, liberty the pursuit of happiness"
2. The only way to achieve 1 requires the idea of self ownership.
3. Premise: The constitution contains the second ammendment, an explicit right to bear the means of defending ones life.
4. 2 & 3 Give us explicit support for defending ones life, due to one's ownership of that life.
5. Premise: IF you own something, you have soverign power over how it is used, provided such use doesn't violate someone elses sovierign power over their own property.
6. Given 4 & 5, You have human rights, which are a broad set of rights.
7. Premise: The use of violence to defend oneself is a more radical (historically) right than the right to have a friendship or other form of free association.
8. One of the rights that derive from 4 & 5 is the right to develop relationships with other people who consent to such relationship.
8. Given 3, 6, 7 and 8, you have the right of free association even if it is not directly mentioned in the constitution. (Though it may be)
9. Definition: Marriage is a consentual relationship.
10. Definition: Common law Marriage does not require the consent of anyone else, except in cases where the partners who are getting married seek such consent.
11. Definition: Common Law Marriage is a form of Marriage.
12. Therefore, Marriage is protected as a human right, given 7, 8, &9, even if others do not approve of it (9, 10, 11).
13. The government in this country is formed to uphold the principles stated in premise 1 and 2.
14. The government does not have the right to violate human rights 6, or free association 8, or regulate marriage 12.
15. Therefore, the government does not have the right to violate a protected right by stopping any class of people from getting married. (14)
This argument does not rely on the constitution, it merely relies on the Declaration of Independance, which, while not binding, is generally recognized as the founding sprit of the country.
The question before us is not can two people get married if they are the same gender. The question is, can the state--- specifically the AMERICAN government, a government founded on the principles laid out in the Declaration of Independance, and which has sworn, every year since its founding, an oath to support said principles and the constitution that embodies them--- can such a government use force to remove the right of free association from individuals.
I see no way they can do so, without being unamerican. Without violating the promise of the Declaration of Independance.
I have no relied on, or even addressed any religious argument. I have gone to the core definition of marriage-- it is a relationship.
Would anyone like to try to make a counter argument?
But, since many people have insisted that their opposition is not based on religion, I would like to ask for one of them to present their argument.
And I mean, an argument, using logic, reason, and accepted premises.
This does not include:
---I heard from someone that gays carry lots of diseases, therefore they shouldn't be allowed to marry.
---I read in the bible that its an abomination, therefore...
---We've had thousands of years of (religious) tradition where marriage is a man and a woman....
Or any other argument based on religion or personal disgust, or hatred.
Is there any logical argument to prevent people from exercising free association via marriage?
And to concede pax's points from the other thread (I think it was her) lets presume that marrying someone in your family, or someone underage, is already prohibited.
I'd also be interested in hearing of these "peer-reviewed" studies that rock jock claims to have.
And finally, since threads like this get out of control, I would like to ask for the moderators to either censure, edit, or otherwise enforce the rules here without closing the thread. As long as some people are sticking on the topic and not violating the rules, please leave this thread open and just address the ones who are violating the rules. I don't like the fact that it seems someone can parachute in and describe gay sex in graphic detail and stop everyone else from being able to talk about the subject by getting the thread closed.
To start, here's my argument. I'd love if if people followed a similar form for counter:
1. Premise: The country was founded on the right of "life, liberty the pursuit of happiness"
2. The only way to achieve 1 requires the idea of self ownership.
3. Premise: The constitution contains the second ammendment, an explicit right to bear the means of defending ones life.
4. 2 & 3 Give us explicit support for defending ones life, due to one's ownership of that life.
5. Premise: IF you own something, you have soverign power over how it is used, provided such use doesn't violate someone elses sovierign power over their own property.
6. Given 4 & 5, You have human rights, which are a broad set of rights.
7. Premise: The use of violence to defend oneself is a more radical (historically) right than the right to have a friendship or other form of free association.
8. One of the rights that derive from 4 & 5 is the right to develop relationships with other people who consent to such relationship.
8. Given 3, 6, 7 and 8, you have the right of free association even if it is not directly mentioned in the constitution. (Though it may be)
9. Definition: Marriage is a consentual relationship.
10. Definition: Common law Marriage does not require the consent of anyone else, except in cases where the partners who are getting married seek such consent.
11. Definition: Common Law Marriage is a form of Marriage.
12. Therefore, Marriage is protected as a human right, given 7, 8, &9, even if others do not approve of it (9, 10, 11).
13. The government in this country is formed to uphold the principles stated in premise 1 and 2.
14. The government does not have the right to violate human rights 6, or free association 8, or regulate marriage 12.
15. Therefore, the government does not have the right to violate a protected right by stopping any class of people from getting married. (14)
This argument does not rely on the constitution, it merely relies on the Declaration of Independance, which, while not binding, is generally recognized as the founding sprit of the country.
The question before us is not can two people get married if they are the same gender. The question is, can the state--- specifically the AMERICAN government, a government founded on the principles laid out in the Declaration of Independance, and which has sworn, every year since its founding, an oath to support said principles and the constitution that embodies them--- can such a government use force to remove the right of free association from individuals.
I see no way they can do so, without being unamerican. Without violating the promise of the Declaration of Independance.
I have no relied on, or even addressed any religious argument. I have gone to the core definition of marriage-- it is a relationship.
Would anyone like to try to make a counter argument?
well, we know they care about their rights, don't we?