Thank you, New York!

[Bbradley62]

I would think marriages with children are very different from marriages without, at least from the perspective of the state. If marital tax breaks were restricted to marriages with children, I would be fine with that, and so I think would a lot of other people.

There should be tax breaks for child-rearing, whether that child-rearing is being done by married couples or single parents. So no, this is not a "one marriage is better than another marriage" scenario.

[phil_20686]

What I don't understand: Why do you want the state to enforce (4) with respect to gay couples, but not with respect to heterosexual couples? The only way to make your position consistent is to argue (among other things) for outlawing marital sex with contraception. Would you vote for such a law? For outlawing divorce?

 

In effect, you are asking the state to selectively enforce your view of marriage. It is hard to distinguish this selectivity from discrimination.

 

 

What you make legal helps to form societal expectations and stigmas. These expectations and stigmas are very important in moral formation. Let us take the example of promiscuity. Suppose that I and my friend both engaged in promiscuous activities while at university, and by some misfortune he caught a serious STD, then to my mind I would be partly responsible. After all, by taking part in that behaviour I have legitimised it. Had I been chaste, and advocated chastity, it would likely have had some effect on my friends behaviour. A similar argument holds for gambling and drug addiction. Everyone who gambles and takes drugs legitimises those activities, and by doing that they take on a portion of guilt for every person who is damaged by those activities.

 

Gay marriage legitimises a philosophical view of life that I believe to be very damaging. I do not think that the fact that the rise in individualism has coincided with legalisation of drugs and abortion. In an individual outlook, the fact that some people can gamble/use drugs/have promiscuous sex without ill effect is reason enough to legalise it, in a Christian outlook, the fact that some people are damaged by an activity is reason enough for me to deny it to myself by making it illegal. (Short version - I am my brothers keeper).

 

Life as service vs the cult of the individual is at the heart of the cultural wars. If we do not reject individualism it is only a matter of time before we legitimise euthanasia, and unfettered inequality. I believe that individualism has eroded society in areas as diverse as support for socialised medicine, to spawning the belief that the only duty of a CEO is to make money for his shareholders (Since shareholders=owners, this is only the recurring belief that owners bear no responsibility for the welfare and working conditions of their employees, and should instead squeeze wages as much as possible to increase profits).

 

I find it deeply ironic that extreme secularists see themselves as descended from the enlightenment and rationalist movements, when those philosophers believed almost to a man that the only way a democracy could function was if voters believed that their primary responsibility was to society and their fellow man rather than themselves, and even those who rejected Christianity as vehemently as Voltaire, believed that some form of public religion would be necessary to maintain that sentiment. (That's probably why so many of them were deists....).

 

Thus, I think that legal protections for marriage should be set up in such a way that they enhance the idea of marriage as a good for society, with duties that extend beyond the two persons involved. There is more than one way to do this. I actually think that restricting things like tax breaks for marriage to those marriages with children would be a positive step. On the other hand, I also have lots of sympathy for single parents, who often have very difficult lives. Perhaps the ideal would be most money on a child benefit type basis, with a transferable tax allowance for married couples with children aswell (eg, treat a household as a single entity with a single income, but tax bands twice as wide - I do not see why a family with one earner on 40k should be worse off than a household with two earners at 20k, when stay at home parents contribute so positively to society as a whole).

 

The issue of what to make illegal is complicated. Not everything that is immoral should be illegal, sometimes small evils must be tolerated to prevent greater abuses. I beleive swearing to be immoral, but an attempt to make it illegal would certainly bring grave suffering on society by stifling legitimate criticism and creating a dangerous apparatus of censorship. Among those who share my pro-life position and general Christian sentiments, opinion is divided on whether it would be correct to make contraception illegal even in ostensibly catholic countries, although I lean towards yes. But making the distribution of contraception illegal is different from making "sex with contraception" illegal, which is what the post suggested. I would certainly be against that.

 

 

I would certainly vote to end no fault divorce. And I think that is a no-brainer. Divorce should be difficult, available only to the suffers of serious abuse. Again, because I think that no fault divorce has encouraged people to slide into marriage without giving it due consideration. Among my acquantices it seems like many have fallen into relationships (virtually by accident), eventually moved in together, and eventually bought a house/got married, without every taking some time out to think about whether this is the right relationship, about what things need to change, about making a plan for kids and what kind of life they plan on building for themselves, and I think that this does a lot of damage. Marriage used to act as an enforced decision time, and I think that that is a very positive aspect of life long commitments. I strongly suspect that this is that having a "trial period" of living together before you get married makes you substantially more likely to get divorced. Its hard to say no after you have been living together and there has not been any disasters.

[Vampyr]

 

Gay marriage legitimises a philosophical view of life that I believe to be very damaging.

 

 

In the rest of the post you do not hint at what is "damaging" about gay marriage.

 

 

I believe that individualism has eroded society in areas as diverse as support for socialised medicine,

 

 

This is probably true. Societies that accept some "socialism" have socialised medicine, and the cult of individualism in the United States (exclusively, I believe, among industrialised countries) has been instrumental in its rejection, with tragic circumstances for the US. I agree that this is a pity.

 

 

 

Thus, I think that legal protections for marriage should be set up in such a way that they enhance the idea of marriage as a good for society, with duties that extend beyond the two persons involved.

 

And this "good" is restricted to certain marriages, involving a specific combination of genders?

 

 

Among those who share my pro-life position and general Christian sentiments, opinion

 

 

Honestly, if these people are as serious nutcases as you, their opinions aren't worth much, are they?

 

 

is divided on whether it would be correct to make contraception illegal even in ostensibly catholic countries, although I lean towards yes.

 

 

"Catholic" countries don't contain 100% Catholics. Anyhow I have really been wondering whether you are serious, but thie contraception stuff, and the stuff about giving your friend an STD if you didn't tell him to stay home and pray instead of going out and doing foolish things, has me leaning toward the idea that you are taking the piss. Your parody of the Catholic position is good, but not as funny as the Monty Python video I attached earlier in the thread.

 

If, against all odds, you are actually serious about all this, I would advise you to stop posting. Your posts are very persuasive against the view that they profess.

[PassedOut]

If, against all odds, you are actually serious about all this, I would advise you to stop posting. Your posts are very persuasive against the view that they profess.

Although I disagree with every one of Phil's religious beliefs, I think he expresses his positions honestly, clearly, and well. He doesn't duck questions and he stands his ground in the face of opposition. I like to read his posts.

[helene_t]

I wonder what causes the correlation between religious belief/affiliation and the belief in the virtue of reproduction. The more religious people are the more children they get - this holds at the individual level as well as when comparing countries. And many religious authorities are opposed to abortion and birth control. If a politician, columnist or blogger argues for birth control because of a concern that the Earth is getting over-crowded, chances are that the argument is not based on religion.

 

Is it that the meme for birth control has been selected against during the evolution of religions because parents tend to pass on their religion to their children so it is good for the religion if followers have many children? Or do religious authorities encourage reproduction because of this concern?

 

Or is it just that religious beliefs and affiliation tend to go with old-fashioned views and lifestyles so that people with modern views such as being opposed to over-population and favoring careers for women tend not to be religious?

 

Or something else? Maybe it is easier if one turns the question around, and ask why non-religious people often do not consider reproduction a virtue. After all, humanity has been religious for most of its history and still largely is.

 

I have seen the explanation somewhere (might have been Denett or Diamond) that organized religion was invented in order to strengthen society, and therefore one of its functions was to encourage people to have more children so that the tribe would have more soldiers in the future. This makes some sense in the Amazon forest where large tribes tend to destroy smaller tribes, but I find it hard to believe that the link would still exist today if that was the only explanation.

[Vampyr]

Although I disagree with every one of Phil's religious beliefs, I think he expresses his positions honestly, clearly, and well. He doesn't duck questions and he stands his ground in the face of opposition. I like to read his posts.

 

Do you really think this? I think he crosses way over the line into self-parody, which is why I still wouldn't be surprised if the parody is intentional.

[Winstonm]

Suppose that I and my friend both engaged in promiscuous activities while at university, and by some misfortune he caught a serious STD, then to my mind I would be partly responsible

 

Interesting as this is the argument made by Sam Harris proposing that moderate and liberal religious believers are also responsible for the violence of more radical believers because their insistence on belief without evidence helps foster society's acceptance of all mystical belief systems, including those that turn to violence.

[Vampyr]

Interesting as this is the argument made by Sam Harris proposing that moderate and liberal religious believers are also responsible for the violence of more radical believers because their insistence on belief without evidence helps foster society's acceptance of all mystical belief systems, including those that turn to violence.

 

Christopher Hitchin makes the same argument as Sam Harris, but I don't think that the similarity to the idea that you can be a bad influence on your friend is strong.

[PassedOut]

Do you really think this? I think he crosses way over the line into self-parody, which is why I still wouldn't be surprised if the parody is intentional.

For awhile I held that view myself. Over time, though, I've become convinced that Phil is a completely sincere and committed Roman Catholic. And I find life more interesting when I read the well-expressed opinions of folks who disagree with me.

 

From past discussions, Phil knows my opinion that no god exists, so that religions are without foundation. By contrast, Phil believes in God and that Roman Catholic teachings express God's will. Despite our differences, I enjoy reading his views and his explanations of why he holds them.

[Trinidad]

I would very much prefer to see near complete separate between church and state, meaning that:

 

1. Marriage should be a strictly religious sacrament []

2. Marriage is defined by the relationship between a man, his wife, and their church. Or, alternatively, between a man, his wife, his wife, his wife, his concubine, his concubine, and their church. Or, even between a woman, her wife, their husband, a goat, and their ever evolving concept of the spiritual. I couldn't care less how the Catholic Church decides to define marriage. At the same time, the Catholics don't get any say in what labels some some other church - say a group of fundamentalist Mormans who believe in plural marriage - decide that they want to use the term "marriage". So what? Who cares?

 

I agree fully with this, if it weren't for one detail in vocabulary: Why should the religious/spiritual, etc. side get the use of the term "marriage"?

 

For me the term "marriage" has a very secular meaning and religion is not involved in the term at all. I am not a native English speaker, but I know that I got married in front of a judge, who signed my marriage license which contains the "Great Seal of the State of Michigan". No priest, minister, imam or rabbi was involved.

 

If the church wants to take a secular institution, like marriage, and add their own rites to it then that is fine with me. They can say: "This is how we celebrate a marriage."

 

But that doesn't grant the church, or any religion, the right to monopolize the term "marriage". If they want to monopolize a term, they can come up with their own word and register it as a trademark or brand name. Then they can do whatever they like with that word. If they decide that people with blue eyes are not allowed to co-sacristate with people whose index finger is shorter than their ring finger, then that is up to them (as long as it is not forbidden by anti discrimination laws).

 

It is not as if the State of New York has told the catholic church how or who they should baptize or give the holy communion. That would be entirely different.

 

Note further that in many countries a church marriage is not recognized by the secular society (see e.g. the marriage of Prince Albert of Monaco). The US secular society is already quite friendly to the church by recognizing marriages that have been performed by the church. But if the church claims the monopoly on the term "marriage" then they are overplaying their hand.

 

Rik

[Vampyr]

And I find life more interesting when I read the well-expressed opinions of folks who disagree with me.

 

...

 

Despite our differences, I enjoy reading his views and his explanations of why he holds them.

 

In cases like ths, I don't find it interesting or enjoyable in the least.

 

This is mainly because I wouldn't grant Phil's positions the termss "opinions" or "views". Faith means believing something is true despite a complete lack of corroborating evidence, and the practical and logical impossibilities of its being true. Phil has chosen to believe a lost of highly improbable things that some people wrote a long time ago, and a lot of equally improbable things that other people have told him more recently. To be quite honest, I do not believe that such a credulous, uncritical intellect is capable of intelligent, coherent discussion on any subject whatsoever.

 

But it moves from farce into tragedy when such a person decides that his "views" should be enshrined in law. A person surely has the right to be foolish, but I do not believe that a person has a right to be evil.

[olegru]

The same could be said for a man living with his permanent wife.

Man living with his permanent wife has all duties and rights of married couple by definition of marriage.

 

We have several recognizable forms of relationships. Husband-wife, mother-son, man-girlfriend, brother-sister, person-pet. Rights and duties inside these relationships and between relationship and the rest of sociaty are diferent and regulated diferently in diferent socities.

 

Now we have "new" for of relationship: man and his boyfriend. I am completely agree that that relationship must be recognizable.

But I think it should be done as a new form of relationship with own sets of rights, not as a part of existing form.

[Vampyr]

Now we have "new" for of relationship: man and his boyfriend. I am completely agree that that relationship must be recognizable.

But I think it should be done as a new form of relationship with own sets of rights, not as a part of existing form.

 

Do you think it is "new"? The last anti-miscegenation laws in the United States were repealed in 1967. Were these newly-legal inter-racial unions a "new" form of relationship? It seems to me that it was just marriage, made available to more people. And the same is the case now.

 

Why do you think it matters what word is used?

[olegru]

No, I do not think it is only word. I believe set of rights could be diferent too.

 

Because we are in a bridge forum, question for you: Would you allow the same sex married couple to compete in the mixed pairs?

If not, please explain why do we have this discrimination - other married couple can play in the mixed pairs and this one can't.

With all euphoria from making equality we can't simply put "=" sign between something are not equal.

[1eyedjack]

And the `catholic' governor has now been excommunicated for that.

 

How petty.

[1eyedjack]

Because we are in a bridge forum, question for you: Would you allow the same sex married couple to compete in the mixed pairs?

If not, please explain why do we have this discrimination - other married couple can play in the mixed pairs and this one can't.

With all euphoria from making equality we can't simply put "=" sign between something are not equal.

 

I think that the first question that you need to ask is why have a mixed pairs contest in the first place? Or for that matter a mens pairs, or a ladies pairs?

 

Unless you subscribe to the controversial theory that one gender has an innate handicap compared with the other, then the only remaining justification that I can think of is money. If you can think of a way of subdividing the population into distinct groups you can maximise your revenue by offering several services to the distinct groups rather than just one service to the whole population.

 

On that basis it would be just as logical to offer a pairs event for those with surnames beginning A to K and another L to Z, except perhaps that the Chinese dominate the letter X. With segregation by gender it is at least (normally) reasonably easy to monitor compliance.

 

A "mixed pair" need not be married, so I see no argument for allowing a married male couple to play in a mixed event. A Flitch, now, that might be a different matter.

 

If you do subscribe to the controversial theory that one gender has an innate handicap, then that would be a strong argument for barring a same sex married couple in a mixed pairs event.

[1eyedjack]

At heart, I think the main area of disagreement is about the concept of man's purpose. In the prevailing Zeitgeist of secular countries like the UK, it seems that most people see their purpose as "having a good time", or having a life with "the greatest happiness", or occasionally "to produce the greatest amount of happiness that I can". This differs hugely from a Christian understanding of life, which, considers as primary the concept of service. Thus, when coming of age, the appropriate question for a Christian to ask is "Whom shall I serve?", or more theologically "What form of service is most pleasing to God?". Since we are each born with different gifts, the specifics of our vocations differ, although it is possible to group them into broad categories, like joining a religious order, or marriage, or advocacy. Seen in this light, Christians reject the idea that marriage is primarily about feelings of happiness, and instead see marriage as entering into a life of service to ones spouse, and to society as a whole. Fulfilling this service (or indeed any appropriate vocation), is the route to true contentment and fulfilment.

 

I don't believe that it is a feature particularly unique to Catholicism that giving service is a route to contentment and fulfilment. In fact I think that it is a common factor among most religions. Buddhism perhaps takes it to an even greater extreme. Does this mean that we should embrace religion, and if so, any particular one?

 

Furthermore there are some who do not adhere to any religion, Catholicism or otherwise, who discover that (for them) the act of giving is a road to contentment and fulfilment, and do not feel the need to embrace the baggage of religious doctrines that try to dictate the form in which that service should take.

 

Followers of most religions, if adequately brainwashed, will profess to have led a life of contentment and fulfilment. This would also apply to some very peculiar cults, and some mainstream orders such as the Taliban (or at least the male half of that population) some of whom achieve such a state of ecstacy that they will willingly surrender their lives in its cause.

 

To my mind the key to the above passage is the tacit acknowledgement that contentment and fulfilment is the end to which Catholicism is the proposed means. While Catholics decry the secular societies for their "mere pursuit of happiness", that is in reality only the same end to which Catholics aspire, and it is only the route to achieve it that is contested.

 

Perhaps we should take care not to place unquestioned credance in self-proclaimed (and therefore necessarily subjective) claims to contentment and fulfilment.

[gordontd]

Because we are in a bridge forum, question for you: Would you allow the same sex married couple to compete in the mixed pairs?

No, because they are not mixed sexes. But I would certainly allow them to play in a married couples pairs if such a thing existed (though thankfully they do not any more in most places of the world). You seem to have fallen into the trap of equating "married" with "mixed", even as you discuss same-sex marriages.

[nige1]

No, because they are not mixed sexes. But I would certainly allow them to play in a married couples pairs if such a thing existed (though thankfully they do not any more in most places of the world). You seem to have fallen into the trap of equating "married" with "mixed", even as you discuss same-sex marriages.

Berks and Bucks have an annual "Flitch" -- a pairs competition for married couples.

Flitch "side of bacon," M.E. flicche (early 13c.), from O.E. flicce, related to O.N. flikki, M.L.G. vlicke "piece of flesh." Not immediately connected to flesh, but perhaps from the same PIE root. A flitch was presented every year at Dunmow, in Essex, to any married couple who could prove they had lived together without quarreling for a year and a day, a custom mentioned as far back as mid-14c.

[gordontd]

Berks and Bucks have an annual "Flitch" -- a pairs competition for married couples.

Do they have to prove they've lived together without quarreling? (For a day, never mind a year and a day, would be hard enough in the case of one prominent B&B couple I can think of!)

[hrothgar]

I agree fully with this, if it weren't for one detail in vocabulary: Why should the religious/spiritual, etc. side get the use of the term "marriage"?

 

Hi Rik

 

From my perspective, the state should solely be concerned with issues such as property rights, visitation rights, inheritance, etc...

I can't imagine why anyone would want to refer to the act of entering into such a contract as a "marriage".

It seems complete separately and distinct...

 

With this said and done, I wouldn't have any objection if two people wanted to pledge themselves to one another in some non legally binding way without the formal participation of an established church and use the expression "marriage" to describe this arrangement.

[helene_t]

From my perspective, the state should solely be concerned with issues such as property rights, visitation rights, inheritance, etc...

I can't imagine why anyone would want to refer to the act of entering into such a contract as a "marriage".

But they do.

 

Couples could, in theory, make a conscious choice as to whether they want to give each other visitation rights, whether they want to share the parental duties for future children born by one of them, etc.

 

But that's not what they do. They just get married, without knowing in detail what duties that implies. This is very practical because the alternative is that they would have to hire an expensive lawyer to make sure that their tailored contract makes sense from a legal point of view. You know the kind of statutes and contracts amateurs make when they try to run associations and such without professional legal advice. It's a legal nightmare, full of clauses that are contradictory, unclear, insufficient or non-enforceable, or have unintended implications.

 

BTW, I don't understand this "visiting right" thing. Does it mean that spouses can visit 24/7 while friends and colleagues can only visit during dedicated visiting times?

[Bbradley62]

BTW, I don't understand this "visiting right" thing. Does it mean that spouses can visit 24/7 while friends and colleagues can only visit during dedicated visiting times?

Sometimes it's this, or sometimes it's only your lawyer or spouse can see you at all.

[Trinidad]

I agree with Helene.

 

It's the state's job to provide infrastructure. This is not only the visible infrastructure (roads, etc.) but also legal infrastructure.

 

I think it is entirely appropriate for the state to provide "default contracts" for situations that arise frequently. A legal marriage is one of those situations. And the mere fact that the state provides one or more default contracts doesnot pass a moral judgement. It is only supposed to make sure that these default contracts "fit" the rest of the legal infrastructure properly. Any two (or more) parties are free to enter their own contract, but it doesn't come with a guarantee from the government.

 

If there ever is a high demand for contracts between 7 people, a cat, an iguana and an apple tree, it is the state's job to provide fitting contracts. At this point there is a significant demand for contracts between two people of the same sex. It is the state's job to provide the default contracts that fit the existing legal infrastructure. If the state doesn#t do this job, it is not serving its citizens the way it should.

 

Rik

[hrothgar]

I agree with Helene.

 

It's the state's job to provide infrastructure. This is not only the visible infrastructure (roads, etc.) but also legal infrastructure.

 

I think it is entirely appropriate for the state to provide "default contracts" for situations that arise frequently. A legal marriage is one of those situations. And the mere fact that the state provides one or more default contracts doesnot pass a moral judgement. It is only supposed to make sure that these default contracts "fit" the rest of the legal infrastructure properly. Any two (or more) parties are free to enter their own contract, but it doesn't come with a guarantee from the government.

 

If there ever is a high demand for contracts between 7 people, a cat, an iguana and an apple tree, it is the state's job to provide fitting contracts. At this point there is a significant demand for contracts between two people of the same sex. It is the state's job to provide the default contracts that fit the existing legal infrastructure. If the state doesn#t do this job, it is not serving its citizens the way it should.

 

Rik

 

I don't object to any of this. I'd even go so far as to call it a good idea...

However, I wouldn't call this set of legal responsibilities a marriage (regardless of whether it is being issued to a man and a woman, two women, or three guys and a wombat)

 

I view this system as being significantly different from the existing standard here in the United States, both for heterosexuals and for homosexuals.

Part of the reason to chose an expression other than "marriage" is indicate that this is separate and distinct from what came before.