In a brief discussion at Family Scholars Blog, I made the point that
“SSM argumentation has cited no essential of the SSM idea that must be accorded same-sex twosomes but must be denied ‘same-sex’ moresomes.”
Phil frequents the comment section of that blog; he is known to the readership here as well. He reacted to my comment:
"Now, it sounds like that claim, in plain English, means that SSM advocates have never, ever, cited an essential feature of same-sex marriage that applies to couples but cannot be applied to groups of three or more."
The bit Phil quoted from me actually said it better than Phil did.
Here it is restated: SSM argumentation cites no essential of the SSM idea that must be granted to two but denied to more than two.
Note that Phil has failed to cite such an essential. Not in that discussion and not anywhere else he has offered his pro-SSM opinions.
Sure, he has claimed he can do so. He has claimed that it has been done by others. He has thus put his own credibility on the line. He might surprise and come up with something new. I'd welcome that.
The challenge to Phil (and other SSMers who might throw him a lifeline) is to state the essential feature(s) of SSM idea such that it fits the twosome but not the moresome.
It is insufficient to merely assert the limit of two. SSMers have insisted that mere assertion cannot suffice when it comes to the man-woman criterion of marriage law. Likewise they have insisted that just because it may be the status quo, or just because it has always been so, cannot suffice. They demand more of marriage defenders.
But they expect less of themselves.
When their own SSM idea is tested with their own rules of argumentation, they must do better than make a bald-faced assertion and then pretend they've made an argument by repeating the assertion.
The man-woman criterion exists in the law. They have demanded justification. And so the limit of two cannot stand without justification that arises from the SSM idea alone (and not from the core meaning of marriage which SSMers have rejected as an unjust basis for limiting eligibility). They can offer nothing about integration of the sexes; nothing about responsible procreation; nothing about the social institution for they have placed all their emphasis on the governmental shadow of that social institution of civil society.
Their justification for the two-participant criterion cannot be borrowed from the two-sexed sexual basis of marriage law, for SSMers have rejected that sexual basis as an illegitimate foundation for limiting eligibility to marry. They have claimed that the same-sex scenario is just like the two-sexed scenario; so much so that the two scenarios must be treated as one and the same. In that case, they can start by restricting their justification to the same-sex scenario, alone, and we can look forward to seeing how they'd apply it justly to the man-woman combination.
Eligibility to SSM cannot be limited based on stuff that is not mandatory, according to SSM argumentation.
For instance, SSMers have insisted that procreation is not mandatory and therefore is an illegitimate basis for limiting eligilbity to marry. Same-sex sexual behavior is not mandatory for those who'd SSM so that can't be the basis for restricting eligilbity to SSM. There is no sexual basis for presuming a man to have impregnated another man so they can't borrow from the sexual basis for the marital presumption of paternity. That sexual basis is the same for sexual consummation, annulment provisions, and adultery/divorce. All of that is put aside until a new basis can be found. So SSMers must come up with something else that fits the same-sex twosome but not the same-sex moresome.
They have insisted on 100% certainty, when it comes to ability to procreate, as a condition for even entertaining the possiblity that procreation is central to eligibility to marry. So any justification they'd offer for limiting eligibility to SSM must come with the same 100% certainty and thus enforced with no exceptions, apparent or actual; otherwise the offered justification cannot stand as an essential of the SSM idea.
Further, SSMers have insisted that justification for a limitation be written into the law; the limitation cannot stand alone. If the moresome is to be denied all that the SSMers demand for the twosome, then, SSMers have to do a lot better than repeat the two-participant criterion.
SSMers made these rules when it suited them to hack away at the marriage idea. Now, they must play by those rules when their SSM idea is tested.
Their own pro-SSM argumentation cannot allow them to escape the challenge they have given themselves and of which they are now reminded.
Their crediblity is on the line. They are invited to do better.
Excellent points!
ReplyDeleteI don't think they care whether marriage is limited to a two-some or not. They want what they want what they want and they don't care what the long term effects of their agenda are.
ReplyDeleteChairm, I think there is a case for a non-marital twosome status. In the same way someone might have a best friend or a companion. In our form of relationships, we have a best friend, but not best friends or we have a companion, but not companions or we have a maid of honor/best man, but several of them within a wedding party. Do we 'pair off' in even our non-marital relationships. Yes. But that doesn't make them marital, or should they redefine what marriage does. In fact, there are arguments for recognition of gay couples, but it resembles more of the best friend/companion status. And yes gay couples are indeed romantic, not platonic yet public policy isn't interested in the romantic.
ReplyDeletePublic policy is interested in the more objective understanding that heterosexual behavior gets women pregnant, and we want the man to be accountable as a husband and father. It's not that I see marriage as cold, cut and dry. I want marriage to be valued not only in public policy, but in culture where it seems to be lacking. How can we change our culture of marriage, if the law is forbidding us to even acknowledge it as one man and one woman?
Consummation might be defined as the action of making a marriage or relationship complete by having sexual intercourse. This "sexual basis" is the same forconsummation in annulment provisions, and adultery/divorce. This appears to apply equally to both heterosexual and homosexual couples who are similarly situated.
ReplyDelete“SSM argumentation has cited no essential of the SSM idea that must be accorded same-sex twosomes but must be denied ‘same-sex’ moresomes.”
What legal or regulatory marital standard exists that requires same sex couples (or opposite sex couples for that matter) to cite the "so called essentials of marriage that are denied to so called moresomes?" in order to get a marriage license in the current 7 SSM US jurisdictions?
Is not marriage assumed to be a monogamous institution?
If the legal requirement is that SSM couples must explain how marriage is not applicable to a >2 scenario, then opposite sex couples must be held to the same standard. The OSM crowd should politely meet their own standard of argumentation first, no?
Unknown, Why can only one man can pass a paternity test, and not another. Society would like to promote this man/woman combination in a healthy and responsible manner, see our posts in regards to father absenteeism in a child's life. Both biological parents make a difference, and if they are not present in a child's life it has an affect.
ReplyDeleteChildren are not possessions, to be marketed for those who want to build a family. They're human beings and we hold obligations to them.
Now strictly biologically speaking, only heterosexual couples can 'consummate' in which the female reproductive organ is conjoined with the male reproductive organ, as evolved through evolution.
Do homosexuals engage in sexual activity, and could this activity even be directed in a mutual loving manner? Sexual activity, outside of the conjugal act/coitus, isn't the same. Homosexual activity is not biologically designed to ever consider the concern of getting pregnant. No child can be produced from two people of the same-sex.
There has even been incidences of women getting pregnant by other acts accidentally and deceitfully. DNA Paternity tests don't lie. The child exists and we would like to think we should value both mother and father parenting together under one roof.
Again marriage laws seem very non-romantic, but there is a good reason for that it has to be objective for public policy reason. We don't like baby mama drama.
It's not I hateful person, if society wants to accepts differing types of non-marital relationships, let's call them something new and special. Let's tailor good public policy to that relationship's needs.
The sexual basis for the legal marital presumption of paternity is the same for sexual consummation. It is the same for adultery/divorce; and for some annulment provisions. The interconnections are really quite obvious and coherent.
ReplyDeleteSince that sexual basis not one-sexed nor sex-neutral, Unknown, you are mistaken in your attempted equivalence.
Your emphasis on sexual orientation is noted.
Where SSM has been imposed or enacted, what is the justification for banning some same-sex couples from SSM?
Polygamous-like SSM would be a series of same-sex twosomes. Not a group where each particant is SSM'd to every other participant.
SSMers cannot look to the core meaning of SSM to find justification for banning some same-sex twosomes from SSM. There is nothing there. So SSMers will look outside of SSM and flounder.
Marriage defenders can look at the core meaning of marriage and, given societal regard for the 1) integration of the sexes (for example making a man the closest kin of a woman), 2) provision for responsible procreation (see the marital presumption of paternity and all the flows from its sexual basis), 3) these combined as a coherent whole (see marriage as a social institution rather than as a private arrangement defined solely by personal preferences).
From within marriage there is justification for the lines of eligibility/ineligibility; it depends on how society regards that core of marriage.
SSM depends on societal disregard for the core meaning of the social institution of marriage. That may go a long way in explaining why SSMers do not look to the core of SSM and are happy to be bereft of justification for limitations on SSM that arise from within the SSM idea itself.
Unknown, you misread if you imagined I proposed a polygamy quizz or somesuch for those who'd SSM.
The point is that SSMers seek a change in the law. They need to justify that change. And part of that is simply providing the case for SSM that includes justification for limits on eligibility.
One such limit, the man-woman criterion of marriage law, has been denounced by SSMers as a ban. You, Unknown, need to defend the ban on some same-sex couples in those places where SSM has been imposed or enacted -- or where you would have SSM imposed or enacted.
It ought to be a simple task since SSMers have already setup rules of argumentation to test the limits of eligilbity to marry. These rules now must be used to challenge the SSM idea, too. Fair play.
Renee, "Children are not possessions, to be marketed for those who want to build a family. They're human beings and we hold obligations to them."
ReplyDeleteYou're against IVF and the paternity issues associated with non-fertile opposite sex couples too?
I fail to see what is not functioning if same sex couples divorce and are obligated for support and custody or visitation access. Paternity seems to be established from a civil law perspective for these children in SSM relationships. What exactly is broken? Do you have examples of where SSM couples divorce and everyone is running around saying we cannot establish paternity, therefore the child will not receive support, custody or visitation cannot be established?
Moreover, Is there a problem with opposite sex couples who divorce who use modern reproductive technologies? From an equal application of the law for either set of couples, our legal system seems to address these issues in a similarly situated manner efficiently. Same sex couples are not asking for anything different. Equal application of existing law seems to work in each of the 7 US jurisdictions that allow marriage equality. It seems that your main point is that you just don't like it.
If two same sex couples marry, could not the spouse of the other spouse become the closest kin? Is there a civil law legal requirement that is not being met where same sex couples can marry?
re: ---
1) integration of the sexes (for example making a man the closest kin of a woman), 2) provision for responsible procreation (see the marital presumption of paternity and all the flows from its sexual basis), 3) these combined as a coherent whole (see marriage as a social institution rather than as a private arrangement defined solely by personal preferences).
----
All that flows from this sexual basis, procreation works well for IVF and is supported in Civil law. I fail to see what IVF provision is missing for either opposite sex or same sex couples? What change in civil law needs to be made here?
I don't see any marriage equality civil law in any of the 7 jurisdictions that state marriage has now become a "private arrangement defined solely by personal preferences." Law is still the same, no?
The essential part of the marriage institution that values monogamy seems to apply equally to both opposite sex and same sex couples. Both suffer deeply if more two some's violate the fidelity part of the marriage commitment. Divorce may result. So then, reasons for restrictions on eligibility seem apparent. Marriage is thought of as a monogamous institution. Same sex couples are not asking for a different two some or more some eligibility requirement.
If the following is so, what exactly are opposite couples doing differently on a day to day basis in those jurisdictions
where marriage equality is the law?
"SSM depends on societal disregard for the core meaning of the social institution of marriage" So what exactly now are opposite sex married or non married couples doing differently if this societal disregard is so apparent? I see no demonstrable effect, perhaps you can enlighten me.
"SSM depends on societal disregard for the core meaning of the social institution of marriage"
ReplyDeleteDon't the following marriages do disservice to similar marriage core meaning and value constructs?
Convicted Felony Marriage
Spousal Abuse Marriage
Child Molestation Marriage
Drug and Alcohol Abuse Marriage
Neglect and Abuse Marriage
They are all legal in civil marriage law.
Yet, I see no harm in SSM marriage, not societal disregard of any core meaning that has a demonstrable effect on children or the institution.
Unknown, you are not well-informed on fertility.
ReplyDeleteYou said: "You're against IVF and the paternity issues associated with non-fertile opposite sex couples too?"
No one-sexed scenario is infertile for such a scenario is never fertile; the lack of the other sex is not infertility but it is nonfertility.
Amongs the two-sexed scenario there are couples who experience infertility. It is a disablity of reproductive powers. Typically, it is diagnosed after the couple have engaged in lots and lots coital relations in an effort to procreate. About 1/3rd of the time the medical problem is with the husband; another third, the wife; and another third the problemis undertermined. It takes two sexes for fertility; it takes two sexes for infertility.
The lack of the other sex in the same-sex scenario is not a disability; such a scenario is definitively nonfertile whether it be a lone individual, a twosome, a moresome, or a parade of persons of the same sex. This is not infertility.
If you intend to equate, say, homosexuality, with a disablity, please be forthright and sayso unambiguously.
Most married couples who experience infertility will resolve their problems through changes in behavior and without resort to novel technologies. Most already have children. Most will have children together.
That is in contrast with the one-sexed scenario which is never fertile, subfertile, nor infertile. The one-sexed scenario is not sterilized either; it is, by is very nature, nonfertile.
Now, of the relatively few (less than 1%) of married couples who'd depend on such things as ARTs/IVF, the vast majority (more than 91% of this small subset of married infertile couples) do not go outside of their man-woman relationship for "donor" gametes. And those very few who do so will provide the unity of motherhood and fatherhood.
Third party procreation is extramarital procreation even when married people partake of the practice. Indeed, the legislation that enables the practice requires the express agreement of the husband and the wife and, thus, a specific avowal of the possiblity of challenging the legal presumption that the husband is the father of the children born to his wife during their marriage. This practice highlights the significance of that central feature of marriage to which all who enter give their consent as part of becoming married.
So if your point is that society must look outside of marriage for the meaning of marriage, then, say so and it can be noted.
Unknown, you are evading the challenge. Please read the blogpost and respond to it when next you comment here. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteYes, They're all a disservice for marriage, and the law recognizes they're all causes for divorce or annulment!
ReplyDeleteI think most people wouldn't have problem banning sperm/egg donation.
Chairm, thanks for the more detailed clarification on non-fertile couples. My point however, is the availability of modern reproductive technologies to opposite sex couples as well as same sex couples. Gene splicing may be on the horizon. I should have included adoptions and probably blended families.
ReplyDeleteYou said " thus, a specific avowal of the possiblity of challenging the legal presumption that the husband is the father of the children born to his wife during their marriage. This practice highlights the significance of that central feature of marriage to which all who enter give their consent as part of becoming married."
Are you saying same sex couples should not be allowed to adopt or use modern reproductive technologies? They are not meeting some legal marriage requirement? Or they are not really married because they are same sexed?
Please state the fertility requirements in civil law so that I can better understand. What is the direct effect of same sex couples use of these technologies, adoption or blended families on opposite sex non-fertile or fertile couples? How does adoption, or these technologies change the meaning of marriage?
I thought I answered your challenge. The essential part of the marriage institution values monogamy seems to apply equally to both opposite sex and same sex couples. The reasons for restrictions on eligibility seem apparent. Marriage is thought of as a monogamous institution. Same sex couples are not asking for a different two some or more some eligibility requirement.
Opposite sex procreation is not mandatory, so the presumption of paternity argument is not applicable. This non-procreation issue has never meant that groups of three or more can now marry. There are no legal opposite sex restrictions on sexual practices that do not result in procreation (sodomy) that I am aware of. This too, does not mean that groups of 3 or more should be allowed to marry.
So I'm going to hang my hat on existing monogamous construct of marriage for both same sex and opposite sex couples. I find it difficult to understand that other people are judging the core meaning of another's marriage based on sexual integration, capability to procreate, and presumption of paternity. If this is important, describe the effect on opposite couples or society when a same sex couple marries.
Select any jurisdiction, Canada, or in the US to describe the societal effects you have observed.
-
Thank you Renee for acknowledging the disservice to marriage of some felons. However, convicted adult child molesters and spousal abusers can still civil marry. Same sex couples in all but 2 states are permitted to adopt children and raise families, providing homes to children who might otherwise be homeless, yet they cannot marry? Because they don't procreate in a certain way? Seems to me like priorities are misplaced. What about the known and obvious harms of spousal abuse legal marriage?
Unknown, you may have thought you met the challenge but perhaps you might re-read my blogpost from the bold type down. Then take another stab at it.
ReplyDeleteYou said: "The reasons for restrictions on eligibility seem apparent."
If the reasons seem apparent too you, then, please state them.
SSM argumentation brings to the table some big problems for merely asserting that it is sufficient that some people think of marriage as a monogamous institution. It is insufficient that SSMers would draw a line for ineligibility that mimics, but cannot be justified by, the two-sexed sexual basis of marriage.
SSM argument contains some self-defeating lines of thinking. If those lines of thinking are okay when knocking the two-sexed basis of marriage (including marriage law), then, it must be applicable to use those lines of thining to test the SSM idea.
As I said, look first to the one-sexed scenario and consider it alone. Then, tetst the reasons you think are apparent by using those lines of pro-SSM argumentation -- you used one yourself regarding procreation not being mandatory -- and see if your reasons can survive. Then, and only, then, might we see how you'd fairly apply the one-sexed basis for ineliglibity to the two-sexed scenario.
Remember, Unknown, the man-woman criterion is a legal requirement of marriage law. If you knock it with certain ways of thinking, as you have in your own comments here, then, you must apply those ways of thinking to test the SSM idea and the bans on some same-sex types of relationships under SSM law.
ReplyDeleteLets see if I'm getting closer.
ReplyDeleteWe agree so far that marriage is a monogamous institution and in our western culture this is pretty much a solid legal requirement.
You said "SSMers have rejected that sexual basis as an illegitimate foundation for limiting eligibility to marry and cannot be justified by, the two-sexed sexual basis of marriage."
This premise is incorrect. SSMers have not rejected the two sex-sexed sexual basis of marriage. As noted this is not a legal requirement or a core meaning requirement of civill marriage law. It is a characterization of some marriages but not all. For example, some life term prison inmates marry without the chance or expectation of consummation. There is not even a presumed sexual basis in this type of man and woman marriage. Marriage must and does have another meaning for this traditional practice. It is not SSMers that have rejected the opposite sex man woman sexual basis of marriage. The state has already provided this provision in civil marriage law. Moreover, this provision does not harm other marriages where sexual integration and procreation can and does occur. If procreation is central to the ability to marry, then it would be a legal requirement. Existing civil marriage already has another meaning beyond sexual integration that can apply to same sex couples.
So we see that sexual integration is perhaps a straw man.
Unknown, the topic is the challenge. State the essential(s) of the type of one-sexed relationship you have in mind; then, from the essential(s) please produce the reason(s) for banning some same-sex arrangements.
ReplyDeleteIt cannot be sexual for there is no same-sex sexual requirement. It cannot be something to do with procreation, for you keep saying that procreation is irrelevant. It cannot be romance, love, and sexual attraction, for there are no such legal requirements for those who'd SSM.
I am not interest, at this point, in discussing the two-sexed scenario. The challenge begins with the one-sexed scenario. State the essential(s) then state the justification for banning some people but not other people.
Relatedness, by the way, is insufficient since you like to point out exceptions: where SSM is available some related people can and do SSM. So being unrelated is not an essential of SSM.
Give the reason(s) for ineligiblity or please acknowledge that the SSM idea is not up to the challenge (that is based on your own argumentation by the by).
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteChairm, the challenge is difficult when the premise offered (sexual integration) has not been vetted to be completely true. Logic errors based on a false premise make the hurdle difficult to overcome. Trying to make a valid argument on a false premise is pretty much impossible.
ReplyDeleteSame-sex couples (and two sexed couples) do marry for all or either companionship, romance, love and sexual attraction. Yet these are not essentials as prescribed by civil marriage law for same sex (or two sex) couples. They are shared common characteristics. Two elderly people who marry in either the single-sex (or two-sexed) scenario must be about something other than procreation.
Two same-sex (or two-sexed) friends for example, that meet the legal requirements, can marry in jurisdictions where their marriage is legal. How often this happens, I don't know (immigration status for example).
In some states close relatives (as you said) are allowed to marry, they could be friends, but in either scenario this too, is not an essential in either SSM or OSM.
However, grandparents and grand children, fathers and sons and mothers and daughters, brothers and sisters, are not allowed to marry in either the one-sex (or two-sexed) scenario to my knowledge. A reason might be - is the state does not allow these relationships to be a marriage in either the one-sexed (or two-sexed scenario).
You stated "Give the reason(s) for ineligiblity or please acknowledge that the SSM idea is not up to the challenge." This appears, at least for me, to be similar conditional argumentation for both the OSM and SSM ideas. Yet, in both the single-sex and two-sex scenario, folks can and do marry for companionship, love, romance and sexual attraction.
Therefore, I'm back to Monogamy as an essential as well as a legal requirement for the same-sex (and two-sexed) couple who wish to marry. >2 are not eligible for a single marriage license in either the single-sex (or two-sexed) scenario.
As an aside, we know that SCOTUS has determined marriage to be a fundamental right 14 times in our history of jurisprudence and if we accept the premise that for most people, sexual orientation is one of the immutable characteristics. I cannot find a reason to ban or exclude same-sex couples in civil marriage law.
As a footnote, the following statement is corrected to be more factual.
ReplyDelete"Same-sex and opposite sex sexual attraction, same-sex and opposite sex sexual behavior, and not even gay or heterosexual identity are compulsory for those who’d OSM or SSM anyplace where OSM or SSM has been imposed."
Unknown, the challenge is uncomplicated and does not rely on your accepting an untrue premise.
ReplyDeleteIndeed, you appear to start with a conclusion: that the SSM idea is justly limited by the two person of the same sex limitation. See the part in my blogpost that is in bold. That is the challenge. What in it do you feel might be untrue?
* * *
Start with the same sex scenario. No need to jump ahead. We'll discuss the two sex scenario later. If it is as simple as you anticipate, then, what is the harm in starting with one scenario, checking it against the rules invoked by SSMers, and so forth? Afterall, SSMers start with the two-sex scenario and do just that before moving on to include, via the SSM idea, the same-sex scenario. Here we are merely starting with the same-sex scenario and moving in the other direction. Your use of logic ought to work in both directions, surely.
Let's back-up the truck and take from your responses what you think is the SSM idea.
What is the type of relationship you have in mind? One-sexed, yes, and monogamous -- sexually? Or is this just a count of persons rather than something deeper? What would justify limiting the same-sex relationship by the number two?
We need to back the truck all the way up then. In my view, there is no more of an SSM idea, than there is an interracial marriage, or Integrated/non sexually integrated marriage idea or felony marriage idea etc. If this were indeed true, a marriage certificate would so indicate. I have yet to find a certificate of marriage that states "Certificate of Same Sex Marriage" or "Certificate of Interracial Marriage" or "Certificate of Non Sexual Integration Prison Marriage."
ReplyDeleteWe are left then, with only a "Certificate of Marriage" where 2 person couples can civil marry. This "marriage" only designation is provided by the state The SSM idea then, is in reality an untrue premise. Instead, Interracial, felony, non sexually integrated, singe and two sexed are pretty much just "characteristics" of legal civil marriage.
The "marriage" premise with better analysis is more accurate, than to try and carve out an SSM (or any other) idea.
So the question might better become: "Is US civil legal "marriage" monogamous, both sexually and in the count of persons?" My answer is yes, where those characteristics are applicable. One justification might be is that our western marriage culture does not support a legal >2 person civil marriage scenario. Another might be, that a Canadian court has determined that a >2 person scenario could risk harm to children and is could damage the 2 person institution of marriage as it exits today.
You did not back up the truck; you rolled it past the challenge.
ReplyDeleteYou had complained that something in the challenge was untrue.
If you must reject the notion that there are ideas in conflict -- the marriage idea and the SSM idea -- then move forward with the challenge by stating the essentials of the type of relationship you have in mind such that it can be distinguished from other types of relationships -- before a label is affixed to and before a certificate issuing system is setup for it.
You cited the advisory opinion of a judge in British Columbia, Canada. The court did not determine this or that. It advised without an actual case before it. That opinion is not binding on any judge nor on any government nor on any authority that issues certificates of marriage.
Now, if you can get back to the basic challenge and, within the same-sex scenario alone, give the reason(s) for banning some same-sex twosomes from marital status. Note that polygamous-like SSM would be a series of SSMs and not one big group SSM. However, the group version is also at issue given that the claim by SSMers is that consenting adults must be free to choose their partners and the government, as per your earlier comment, may not discrimiante between different types of SSM -- or as you are probably more likely to say, different types of marriage.
Now, within the same-sex scenario, please state the reason to ban some same-sex twosomes and all same-sex moresomes.
You have been very vague thusfar. Perhaps that is the best you can do. If so, that's okay, I am not demanding that you have answers for everything that comes up in the conflict over ideas.
On the other hand, that judge pointed at the social institution of marriage -- which is two-sexed -- and noted concerns about sex integration and responsible procreation (even if he used different terminology to express these ideas). Most SSMers end up doing the same thing.
But that does not help the one-sexed scenario ban on some same-sex twosomes and all same-sex moresomes. Rather, the mimickry is arbitrary and disconnected from the idea of SSM.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteAs a characteristic of marriage in general, I would try and exclude fathers and son(s), and brother(s) (close relatives). I don't think those relationships are the same in terms of sexual attraction, romantic love interest to be a marriage. I assume there would be no use of modern reproductive technologies. In my view, that covers both the 2 sexed and more some close relative scenario. I don't think it would be possible to ban 2 same or opposite sex friends from marriage, because it would be difficult to test for a romantic and sexual love interest.
ReplyDeleteNot sure I agree with your interpretation of the Canadian decision, since same sex couples can marry in Canada. I can't see an issue with sex integration in a polygamous scenario either. Of course it may depend on the definition. I believe sex integration occurs in both the same sex and opposite sex scenario whether or not procreation results. Opposite and same sex couples utilize the same sexual behavior. My take about sex integration is that it is irrelevant because civil marriage is already legal knowing up front consummation will never occur in mixed sex some marriages.
Phil, until you finish the question on the other thread of what you are accusing us of doing, no posting elsewhere.
ReplyDeleteBesides, you don't realize it but your ambiguous "commitment" undermines your position. It is another of your attempts to be abstract and ambiguous rather than deal with the reality of the situation. Even Unknown was able to be more specific than that.
Sorry folks. Every once in a while we need to hold people accountable. After literally hundreds of posts Phil was trying to use accusations and diversions to deflect. His abstractness shows how afraid he is of reality, and even caused him to commit gross contradictions. The threads would drone on and on as he continued to avoid acknowledging even what he wrote before.
ReplyDeleteWe don't need that to distract any more threads. Enjoy the discussion y'all I am anxious to see how this turns out between unknown and Chairm.
As a side note, the Canadian decision ".... considered the validity of the polygamy prohibition in the context of Canada's recognition of same-sex marriage. He rejected the "alarmist view ... that recognition of the legitimacy of same-sex marriage will lead to the legitimization of polygamy," noting that polygamy is a practice "inevitably associated with serious harms." While recognition of same-sex marriage promotes equality, polygyny promotes inequality" - Nicholas Bayla Queens University Law Faculty.
ReplyDeleteUnknown, can you see the contradiction in your thinking that it is okay to ban some same-sex scenarios due to an assumed lack of sexual attraction and/or romantic love interest, but then your admitting that it would be difficult to test for such attraction and such romance and so a ban on that basis would not be possible?
ReplyDeleteSince you'd ban based on something that is not legally required nor made mandatory, you'd stand in open conflict with your own terms for assessing the essential(s) of marriage. Indeed, this is the problem with the SSM idea in the first place. The rules of argumentation used to deconstruct the marriage idea must make mush out of the SSM proposal.
You could toss out the absurd rule; or you could hang tight to an insistance on applying a rule that immediately destroys both the pro-SSM complaint against the marriage law and the pro-SSM solution that you'd hope to see entrenched in the law.
Banning some same-sex twosomes still needs justification based, not on the practice of polygamy (which is two-sexed) but on the same-sex scenario.
If an all-female arrangement is limited to two participants how would that increase equality of the sexes within that type of relationship? Adding more women would not decrease sex inequality since the arrangement's lack of the other sex forecloses both sex equality and integration of the sexes within it.
It can't be about romance nor about sexual behavior, as you have already acknowledged, since there is no legal requirement making that mandatory; and you say it would not be possible to make it mandatory via testing or whatnot.
Would you instead depend on tradition alone? Or on social taboo alone? If so, then, you would be in contradiction with the pro-SSM line of thinking that declares neither tradition nor taboo can be a legitimate basis for banning same-sex twosomes. Yet you favor such a ban on some same-sex twosomes and on all same-sex moresomes.
Unknown, you need to learn more about polygamy before you make the leap to equating a series of SSMs to a series of marriages.
ReplyDeleteThere is no evidence thus far that a series of same-sex twosomes -- or a same-sex moresome -- produces the harms the judge attributed to the practice of polygamy.
So, please return your focus to the same-sex scenario and justify the ban you favor on some same-sex twosomes and on all same-sex moresomes.
I think it would be helpful to test this premise a little further.
ReplyDelete"It's okay to ban some same-sex scenarios due to an assumed lack of sexual attraction and/or romantic love interest, but then your admitting that it would be difficult to test for such attraction and such romance and so a ban on that basis would [most likely] not be possible."
I believe I noted "As a characteristic of marriage in general." The same appears to true in the opposite sex scenario. How do you test for lack of attraction and/or romantic love if Jack and Jill show up for civil marriage at the local Las Vegas wedding chapel? Therefore, I argue this point is moot. This can happen in either the same sex or opposite sex scenario.
I need some help with the civil marriage law legal definition of sex integration you speak of, so I can better understand. I can find many for consummation, but not sexual integration under civil marriage law.
I don't think this is what the Canadian judge meant regarding equality. "If an all-female arrangement is limited to two participants how would that increase equality of the sexes within that type of relationship?" I understood context of equality to mean marriage equality that includes both same and opposite sex couples. So this appears to me, to be a straw man, another separate argument that has nothing to do with what the Judge meant in terms of equality.
ReplyDeleteUnknown, the marriage law does not test for sexual attraction.
ReplyDeleteWe agree.
Now, that shed a different light on the complaint that the marriage law discrimiantes based on sexual attraction.
It sheds a different light also on the proposal that the law be changed to align with sexual attraction.
I think our discussion would be better we if can avoid "Pot Meet Kettle" forms of argumentation.
ReplyDeleteCivil law recognizes the social institution of marriage. The law does not own nor create that institution.
ReplyDeleteWe have already noted the sexual basis for the marital presumption of paternity. It is not one-sexed nor sex-neutral. It is the same basis for sexual consummation, adultery, and provisions for annulment (ie declaring a marriage had not existed).
The law is reasonable, not dictatorial, and so there is no totalitarian system for that would have the government own each union of husband and wife. The marital relationship, and its legal status, is unconditional.
Consider the issue of sexual consummation. If unconsummated, within a reasonable timeframe, the marriage is voidable. The government does not pounce into the marital bed and inspect the couple for consummation; nope, but if either husband or wife deems it necessary, the question can be brought forward as a basis for challenging the presumption of paternity or for seeking a declaration of annulment. This is reasonable for it does not depend on a 100% guarantee nor on the private aspects of the relationship be made public by default. Yet the sexual basis for marriage is indeed of public interest. Hence the legal expression of these things.
So you are mistaken to claim the civil law is blind to the two-sexed sexual basis of the marital relationship.
Nothing of the sort is enacted in civil law for the one-sexed arrangement. And so you are correct on that point when it comes to SSM.
Integration of the sexes is far more than a roll in the hay, as it were. But it is not possible where one sex is excluded. SSM, in each instance, is sex-segregative. It precludes integratoin of man and woman.
But perhaps it has other distinguishing features and merits that would justify the SSM ban on some same-sex twosomes and on all same-sex moresomes?
As for pot and kettle, I do not think that SSM argumentation is reasonable; so I am niether the pot nor the kettle.
ReplyDeleteI am turning the tables and asking you to test your SSM idea based on the argumentation that has been used to knock the marriage idea.
If for you SSM-as-marriage is everything that marriage is, then, you are on the hook for justifying lines of eligiblity based on stuff that does not fit SSM. For if you are fine with SSM-as-marriage, then, it follows that marriage is no more than SSM, the two being the same thing in your view.
Here is another way of thinking of it: why should society treat all unions of husband and wife as if they lacked either husband or wife? That would abolish from the law the sexual basis for marriage.
AT the same stroke it would foreclose the supposed sexual basis for SSM.
Where does that leave your argument, Unknown? Well, you will have great difficulty demanding that sexual orientation form the basis of a type of relationship which, at law, would be nonsexual.
(Note I did not say the people who'd SSM would not form sexual realtionships, but that the type of relationship, at law, would have no sexual basis.)
If that is the idea of SSM, as it seems to be, then, what distinguish SSM from the rest of nonmarriage -- a category full of sexual and nonsexual types of relationshps and arrangements?
Unknown, even with the way you understood the context of what the judge said, the fact is he examined polygamy -- which is a series man-woman unions -- and not a series of SSMs.
ReplyDeleteIf sex equality is undermined in the polygamous type of relationship, as the judge advised, then, this type of marriage practice is not so good. Take that as you may.
The all-female scenario precludes equality of the sexes within it. And, as we are discussing, there is no test for sexual attraction which means this SSM ban on some same-sex twosomes and on all same-sex moresomes is not really about equality on that basis either.
Even if we went with your view that SSM is about equality of sexual attraction, it leaves the problem that SSM is designed to be segregative on the basis of sex and on the basis of sexual attraction.
Marriage integrates the sexes. See the man-woman criterion for starters. The SSM complaint is that this criterion supposedly is a ban based on sexual attraction. Well, you just showed that is not possible, even within your own viewpoint, given the lack of such a test in the marriage law.
But let's try to make sense of the notion that the man-woman criterion can be construed as a ban based on sexual attraction.
An all-female scenario is sexually orientated toward the female sex; and the all-male scenario is orientated toward the male sex.
Based on SSM argumentation, the man in marriage is sexually attracted to his wife, a woman; and the woman is sexually attracted to her husband, a man.
Attraction toward the male sex and attractiontowardthe female sex are both included. The marital relationship would integrative on that score as well.
But clearly each instance of SSM would be sex-segregative. Would it be segregative based on sexual orientation? No requirement there. But the homosexual emphasis in the SSM campaign is unmistakable. It is with that emphasis that SSM was imposed in Canada. SSM, suposedly, is designed to accomodate types of relationshps which are segregative based on sexual attraction. There are the all-male and the all-female options. Within each one sexual attraction -- toward male or female -- is excluded purposefully. And that segregative basis is the supposed justification for SSM wherever it has been imposed or enacted.
I think the complaint is that the law discriminates against gay men and lesbians by denying them a right to marry the person of their choice where heterosexual men and women can do so freely. These one man man and one woman only marriage ban laws discriminate against gays and lesbians on the basis of both sexual orientation (that includes attraction, sense of identity, and self) and sex. Sexual orientation is commonly thought of being fundamental to a persons identity. More over, a distinguishing characteristic that defines gays and lesbians as a discrete group. For the most part, many people find their sexual orientation to be an immutable characteristic. Similar to variations in eye color and race also considered to be an immutable characteristic.
ReplyDeleteGays and lesbians are seeking recognition that marriage to the same sex, be considered a fundamental right affording them full due process and equal protection US constitutional guarantees.
I'm lost here. "The all-female scenario precludes equality of the sexes within it." How so? What does this mean in the relationship or what are the effects? What do opposite sex or same sex couples do differently when this condition occurs in the relationship. I'm totally confused.
ReplyDeleteWhen you talk about sex integration between the sexes, I'm lost here too, without an operative civil law definition, I don't know what "sexual integration" means.
"Based on SSM argumentation, the man in marriage is [assumed to be] sexually attracted to his wife, a woman; and the woman is [assumed to be] sexually attracted to her husband, a man." -> We can add, that a man and a man in a marriage are assumed to be attracted to each other. A woman and another woman in marriage are assumed to be attracted to each other.
I'm not sure i understand the effect of your sex segregation argument on marriage and society. What do opposite sex couples do differently as compared to what they did before. This will enable me to see the effects of your sex segregation argument. I looked, but cannot find this discussed in civil marriage law, so trying to better understand its relevance.
Sex s
" We have already noted the sexual basis for the marital presumption of paternity. It is not one-sexed nor sex-neutral. It is the same basis for sexual consummation, adultery, and provisions for annulment (ie declaring a marriage had not existed)."
ReplyDeleteThese provisions are applicable to some but not all couples in a civil marriage. Some prison marriages will never be consummated. Some elderly opposite couples who marry may never utilize the presumption of paternity provision. Same sex couples are also similarly situated in the provisions that do or don't specifically to their own situation.
What exactly do opposite sex couples do differently because same sex married couples will not utilize some these provisions? Moreover, what to opposite sex couples do differently when prison couples don't integrate sexually or utilize the presumption of paternity provision?
I see no difference, therefore is this point not moot?
"Another way of thinking of it: why should society treat all unions of husband and wife as if they lacked either husband or wife?"
ReplyDeleteIs this not a conclusion? I disagree with the premise. What are opposite sex couples in marital unions doing differently than before 7 jurisdictions in the US provided for marriage equality?
If opposite sex couples in marital unions are being treated differently, then certainly this would be an observable condition with specific effects that can be described.
What are they? Otherwise, me thinks a red herring has found its way into these discussions.
Stay focussed on the challenge before you. What is the justification for banning some same-sex twosomes and all same-sex moresomes from SSM?
ReplyDeleteIt can't have anything at all to do with the two-sexed basis of polygamy.
It can't have anything to do with the lack of sex equality within an all-male or an all-female arrangement for the lack of the other sex precludes sex equality within it.
It can't be equality of sexual orientations within SSM since the homosexual emphasis of SSM precludes inclusion of sexual attraction to the male sex as well as sexual attration to the female sex.
So you must be looking outside of SSM. That might explain why you'd look to polygamy (a series of unions of man and woman) rather than justify the ban on some same-sex twosomes and on all same-sex moresomes based on whatever essential(s), if any, might be attributed to the type of same-sex relationship you have in mind.
Unknown, if the sexual basis for marriage is not two-sexed, then, the marital presumption of paternity is no longer applicable to the husband-wife union. If it is applicable, against the tenents of the SSM idea, then, different types of relationships would be treated differently.
Indeed, how could the all-female arrangement be treated identical to the all-male arrangement, anyway? The sexual basis is different due to a difference in the lack of the other sex. The two types of SSM could not sexually consummate the very same way. And neither can consummate with coital relations as per marriage law. The disconnect goes even further regarding the marital presumption of paternity.
The all-female arrangement lacks paternity. The all-male arrangement lacks the means of becoming impregnated within the relationship. And, as I said, since SSM argumentation denies the essential of provision for responsible procreation, SSM can only mean that those who'd SSM do NOT by default consent to co-parent or to attain children in whatever way might be available. Such consent would be optional.
Thus, you can discern important differences in treatment where SSM-as-marriage replaces the marriage idea.
Unknown, you remain stuck on a serach for the rarest of exceptions (apparent, but not actual, exceptions, by the by).
ReplyDeleteThe marital presumption of paternity is a legal requirement. When entering marriage, people give their consent to its sexual basis. How else would you expect the presumption to have any force in law? It is not merely a social assumption; it is not merely a list of presumptive facts; it is not attached to this or that marriage, one case at a time. You get married and this is part and parcel of what you signed on for.
But it is inapplicable to the one-sex scenario for it is one-sex short of the sexual basis for the presumption's grounding in reality.
Thus you are mistaken to claim that "These provisions are applicable to some but not all couples in a civil marriage."
When you refer to prison marriages, you are trying to claimthere is a type of marriage that is marriage because it includes a person in prison? Nope. You are just trying to use a court decision, one that has its own problems in terms of reasoning, to claim an exceptional type of marriage exists.
A marriage that had no opportunity for consummation can be annulled. The husband and wife can initiate the process if that is desired. The Government does not own their marital relationship. But you seem to think the Government owns each and every marriage. Please confirm, correct, or clarify.
As for the elderly, well, you must be aware that while women generally, but not always, reach the end of the childbearing years during their mid thirties or early forties, men generally remain potent pretty much to the end. The husband and wife are subject to the sexual basis for adultery. And if the husband procreates with a woman other than his wife, then, the marital presumption of paternity does not make her the mother of his child. So, you are again mistaken to object that these provisions do not apply to the older married couples. By living the marriage idea, they utilize what you think is irrelevant. Society does, too, in acknowledging their marital status.
You said:
"Same sex couples are also similarly situated in the provisions that do or don't specifically to their own situation. "
Okay, now, you can see the problem right there, surely. In order to rearrange the boundaries so as to include the entire same-sex category, you must first exagerate the apparent exceptions (not actual exceptions) and give far too much weight to the rarest subsets of the marital category. You have not even compared the two-sexed scenario withe the one-sexed scenario before trying to narrow down your search for exceptions.
The incarcerated person is not eligible to marry just because he is an incarcerated person. The elderly couple are not eligible ljust because they are old.
But you would have the homosexual type of arrangement declared eligible precisely because of homosexuality.
Yet you do the opposite for the related people you would ban from SSM; and for the same-sex twosomes and moresomes you would ban from SSM.
Reconcile this, please, if you can.
"It can't have anything at all to do with the two-sexed basis of polygamy." I'm using the ' based on institution of two" for example, as affirmed in the initial Canadian court determination. I don't think the court bought into each being a separate marriage idea.
ReplyDelete--
"If the sexual basis for marriage is not two-sexed, then, the marital presumption of paternity is no longer applicable to the husband-wife union." Have you any real life examples that substantiate this claim? Any case law examples I can look up?
"The incarcerated person is not eligible to marry just because he is an incarcerated person." But they are eligible to marry, there is no consummation permmissable or "sexual integration" in a life sentence case.
--
The elderly couple are not eligible just because they are old." They cannot procreate together. As you indicated, the man can go outside the marriage and procreate with a younger woman.
Is there a specific problem a homosexual marital union has caused to an opposite sex presumption of paternity in case law?
---
Again, I'm looking for case law examples that describe the necessity of this "sexual integration concept" in civil law. I cannot.
--
"But it is inapplicable to the one-sex scenario for it is one-sex short of the sexual basis for the presumption's grounding in reality."
Would this be a problem when opposite sex couples use modern reproductive technologies?
I don't see the problems in same sex marriages about legal establishment of paternity. I'd like to see a case law example, if so, because of the presumption of paternity issue. I would think lawyers would be really busy.
----
"Yet you do the opposite for the related people you would ban from SSM; and for the same-sex twosomes and moresomes you would ban from SSM."
Isn't this the same issue for the opposite sex marital scenario? A shared issue?
-------
I agree with this:
"A marriage that had no opportunity for consummation can be annulled" My point was that there are legal civil marriages where there is no expectation of consummation and if I can generalize this new concept of sexual integration that i can find no legal citation for.
---
However, you do have me scratching my head. I feel like the sky has fallen, but when I go look for chunks of blue in the streets, I cannot find any practical evidence of what has just happened. I'm a show me the evidence to support the claim kind of person.
I need a case law example showing the practical and real life marital issues with sexual integration, segregation of the sexes, as a direct result of homosexual marital unions. This might help me understand better.
Regrettably I'm at a loss, but you have given me plenty to chew on.
Unknown, you are still not meeting the challenge.
ReplyDeleteYou said: "I'm using the ' based on institution of two" for example, as affirmed in the initial Canadian court determination."
(It was not a determination; it was an advisory opinion.)
Correct me if I got this wrong: you are saying that, because marriage is based on two, you do not feel the need to state why some same-sex twosomes are banned from SSM? Nor why all same-sex moresomes are banned from SSM?
Is that because SSM is not a type of marriage or because SSM-as-marriage cannot justify these bans and so you point to polygamy instead for justification?
My point is that polygamy is a man marrying a series of wives; each marriage is a twosome of opposite sexes. That is the practice known as polygamy in which there are societal concerns regarding how the sexes integrate within that type of marital arrangement; and societal concerns regarding how procreation and family formation occurs within that type of marital arrangement. Polygamous marriage is a type of marriage.
Earlier you objected to treating different types of marriage differently. Yet here you are doing just that. And doing it without a stated justification.
Now, if you cannot meet the challenge, that is okay, we can move on.
Unknown, you await case law.
ReplyDelete1. There is a sexual basis for the legal marital presumption of marriage.
2. That basis cannot apply to the one-sexed scenario.
3. The two-sexed and the one-sexed scenarios are fundamentally different on this point.
4. If both scenarios are to be treated the same, then, either A) the husband-wife union must be treated as if it lacked husband or wife; or B) the one-sexed union must be treated as if it is comprised of husband and wife.
5. A means that consent to marry no longer would entail consent to the marital presumption of paternity.
6. B means that consent to SSM entails consent to a sexual basis of marriage which is precluded by the lack of the other sex. Note: it is not precluded by the lack of procretion on a case-by-case basis. A legal presumption is the default and not an optional add-on after the fact.
Use your own reasoning and think this through.
Unknown, as I said, the incarcerated person may be eligible but his eligiblity is not because he is incacerated.
ReplyDeleteYou want the homosexual type of relationshp to be eligible because it is homosexual. Not because it is same-sexed by the way, but because it is homosexual or gay identified. You have offered nothing else.
That is another fundamental difference between the SSM idea and the marriage idea.
In marriage law there is no homosexual criterion for ineligiblity and no heterosexual criteiron for eligiblity.
A person is eligible but not because he is heterosexual; a person is ineligible but not because he is homosexual. Eligiblity and ineligiblity are drawn around the core meaning of marriage.
The difference between the ideas -- the conflcit of ideas -- is not really about homosexuality but about marriage having a corer meaning and SSM lacking that core meaning. Indeed, SSM advocates reject that core meaning outright.
But they do not offer a core meaning that would justify lines of eligibility; you can't just copy-paste boundaries that are drawn around a core meaning you have rejected. You can't just declare the limit of two as definitive after you have attacked the man-woman criterion as unjustified.
Why can't you? Because SSM argumentation demands justification for ineligiblity and eligibility. If you can't meet your own demands, when the tables are turned, then, you are not trashing your own stated standards.
Unknown, most married people, by far, who'd use modern reproductive technologies do not go outside of their relationship for gametes. And that is in the context of less than 1% of children born have been attained using these methods since the advent of these technologies. A tiny fraction of that 1% were attained via third party procreation.
ReplyDeleteYes, the sexual basis for the marital presumption of paternity applies to married people who use the technoglies and who, in additon, use third party gametes.
On the other hand, third party procreation is extramarital even when married people partake of it.
Please acknowledge that you have understood what I have said on this point -- by restating it in your own words. That way we can confirm that we are on the same page. At least you will understand what I said.
When a husband-wife use a lab to partake in third party procreation, they rely on enabling legislation which shields both of them from possible challenges to the marital presumption of paternity.
That is, the husband and wife agree to waive the sexual basis for rebutting this presumption whereby the husband is the father of children born to his wife during their marriage. The criteria for rebuttal begin with the sexual basis for the presumption in the first place.
The consent to marry entails consent to this sexual basis. Hence the moral, ethical, and legal underpinnings for a waiver. I disagree with the practice and I disagree that society, via government, should be enabling the practice. It ought to be discouraged.
However, the presumption exists, because society and each married couple supply the required consent when the couple say, I do. The waiver is not nothing. It supports my point.
You asked:
ReplyDelete"Isn't this the same issue for the opposite sex marital scenario? A shared issue?"
Nope and nope.
You are merely piggybacking SSM on the back of marriage for a free ride.
The one-sexed arrangement that the SSM campaign laudes is really a subset of the broad non-marriage category of relationship types. That category is not defined by homsoexuality nor by gay identity. It includes two-sexed subsets.
The problem that is revealed in your studied avoidance of the challenge set out before you is that you cannot distinguish the type of relationship you have in mind when you refer to a same-sex couple.
Other than a count of two, what does the word, couple, denote for you? Other than the lack of the other sex, what does the phrase, same-sex, denote for you?
I anticipate that "couple" is meant to evoke romance, sexual attraction, and the like. But you have said these are not legal requriements for those who'd SSM. So they are not essentials to SSM law.
I anticipate that "same-sex" is meant to evoke homosexuality. Lots of SSMrs will compare the same-sex couple to the heterosexual couple. They really do use "same-sex" as just another way of saying homosexual.
But neither homosexuality nor gay identity is a criterion for eligiblity for those who'd SSM.
So, without homosexuality as an essential and without same-sex sexual behavior as an essential, what do you reason as distinguishing the type of relationship you have in mind from the rest of the types of relationships that popualte the nonmarriage category?
Perhaps, just perhaps, if you can state that and then connect it to the ban on some same-sex couples and all same-sex moresomes, we might make a bit of progress in this discussion.
Unknown said:
ReplyDelete"My point was that there are legal civil marriages where there is no expectation of consummation [...]"
You cited a court decision in which the opportunity for sexual consummation, however slight, was acknowledged.
The fact of non-consummation is not the business of government unless the husband or the wife makes it so. And when it is determiend that the marital relationship was not consummated, then, a declaration of annulment can be declared to officially acknowledge that there was no marriage.
Think it through the best you can. How could lack of sexual consummation be grounds for declaring that a marital relationship did not exist?
Do you really think the government ought to be coercing each and every marriage to consummate or forcing married people to prove they have. Should government take the default position that each and every marriage is not consummated sexually untill that is demonstrated in a court of law by their copulating in public?
Likewise with the marital presumption of paternity: would you have government take the default position that each and every married mother was adulterous until it is proven, in each and every instance with 100% certainty, that she and her husband either hand not sexually consummated or did not have opporotunity for impregnation?
That would turn the law upside down. it would make governmetn a tyrant. It would set government on an anti-marriage course. This would be contrary to the core meaning of marriage.
As for expectation, well, expect as you wish but the general rule is not over-turned by that.
Unknown, please acknowledge that the elderly are not eligible just because they are old.
ReplyDeleteDo you think that the homosexual ought to be eligible because he or she is homosexual?
If yes, okay, but no individual is subject to a homosexual criterion for ineligiblity to marry.
You must be thinking of a type of relationship or a type of arrangement that is homosexual; and you expect that its homosexuality is what should make it eligible. Please provide the alternative reasoning if this is not the gist of your intended meaning in your support for SSM.
By the by, you seemed to have missed something rather obvious. Sex equality. Read your own remarks regarding post-menopausal women, again, and try to detect it.
Also, the husband shares the biological clock, as it were, of his wife. In sickness and in health and all that. The sexual basis for adultery is very relevant to your own comments yet you seem a bit obliviious to that. Why your rush to ignore integration of the sexes when it stares you in the face?
* * *
You asked: "Is there a specific problem a homosexual marital union has caused to an opposite sex presumption of paternity in case law?"
The challenge is to think this through for yourself.
The challenge to Phil (and other SSMers who might throw him a lifeline) is to state the essential feature(s) of SSM idea such that it fits the twosome but not the moresome.
Look only at the same-sex scenario.
If you point outside of it, then, you are not pointing at the essential feature(s) of SSM.
In other words, do not rely on polygamy for that is two-sexed, not one-sexed. Do not rely on anything that is not mandatory for those who'd SSM; and, indeed, you need to justify making this or that mandatory as well.
If you want to hold fast to the twosome limitation, then, you need to justify the SSM ban on some same-sex twosomes (remember that polygamy is a series of two-person marriages so you need to focus on a series of SSMs) and justify the SSM ban on all same-sex moresomes.
You really cannot cite sex equality for the lack of the other sex precludes sex equality within SSM -- a series or otherwise. You cannot cite sexual orientation equality within the type of relationship that would be orientated toward the male sex only or toward the female sex only. Marriage, even in terms of SSM argumentation, includes sexual attraction to the male sex and sexual attraction to the female sex. That applies to polygamy, too, but not to SSM -- in series or group or otherwise.
The sky has not fallen where marriage has been confirmed as the union of man and woman. No blue chunks in the street, Unknown.
ReplyDeleteYou want case law when SSM is newly imposed. You want "practical evidence" and yet make highly abstract demands of marriage law enforcing this or that with 100% efficiency or somesuch.
If you doubt that there is a sexual basis for marriage law, then, you are at odds with the homosexual emphasis in SSM argumentation. You also have emphasized homosexuality so you have some explaining to do on that one.
You said: "I'm a show me the evidence to support the claim kind of person."
Show me the case law on multi-SSM.
You support the SSM ban on some same-sex twosomes and on all same-sex moresomes without case law on multi-SSM.
Instead you'd rely on the type of marriage practice in which a man forms a series of two-sexed twosomes.
You might express concern about sex equality within the polygamous family; you might even want the government to deny women the right to consent to this and you'd do so against the pro-SSM mantra of the right to choose the person to marry. But whatever you have offered thusfar you havenot said the reason(s) for banning the practice of one person forming a series of same-sex twosomes under SSM law.
You have not given the reason(s) for banning group SSM. Show me the evidence from the same-sex scenario that supports this ban. Go to case law on SSM.
This challenge remains unmet by SSMers.
ReplyDeleteChairm said: " Unknown, please acknowledge that the elderly are not eligible just because they are old." Acknowledged.
ReplyDelete"Unknown, as I said, the incarcerated person may be eligible but his eligiblity is not because he is incacerated."
Likewise for incarcerated same sex couples in the jurisdictions where they are allowed to marry, but not because they are incarcerated or because they are homosexual. These similarly situated couples could have their marriages annulled for lack of consummation.
"But neither homosexuality nor gay identity is a criterion for eligiblity for those who'd SSM. So, without homosexuality as an essential and without same-sex sexual behavior as an essential," Heterosexual identity or opposite-sex sexual behavior do not appear to be "essential" for civil marriage law eligibility either.
"The sky has not fallen where marriage has been confirmed as the union of man and woman. No blue chunks in the street, Unknown." The equal weight you applied in your comparison is very telling, no?
The sky did not fall when interracial couples could not marry, women could not vote and homosexuals could not serve openly in the military either. Yet recent marital equality testimony from a book quotation makes the point that “We would be more American on the day we permitted same-sex marriage than we were on the day before.”
Likewise the sky will most likely be in the same position as it was they day before. How then, can marriage be under attack?
There is increasing judicial acceptance of the fact that "children are not harmed by being raised by same-sex partners and the conclusion that recognizing same-sex marriage would promote the interests of children being raised in these relationships. Recognizing same-sex relationships did not have societal costs, but on the contrary led to social savings, as individuals in these relationships can look to their partners rather than the state for support." Jurist Nicholas Bala
"You asked: "Is there a specific problem a homosexual marital union has caused to an opposite sex presumption of paternity in case law?" The challenge is to think this through for yourself."
The requirements for parental rights and responsibilities are pretty well established in civil law. See California civil code for example. Therefore this line of argumentation is a straw man.
"You have not given the reason(s) for banning group SSM. Show me the evidence from the same-sex scenario that supports this ban. Go to case law on SSM." I believe the advisory opinion about "the institution of 2" applies to same-sex and opposite sex couples. Current civil marriage law prohibits both so called multiple SSM's and OSM's. A same sex two some is a legal marriage practice in 7 jurisdictions.
I also piggy back off of OSM argumentation for the same reasons, justifications for exclusions of relatives, and groups in existing civil marriage law as it applies to both same-sex and opposite sex couples who marry.
I've asked for evidence, findings of fact and conclusion of law supporting your stated conclusions and premise as determined in civil marriage law. Rhetorical tautologies may work well in the public square, but sometimes, not well in a court of law where they are properly vetted and tested.
I realize I may have failed your challenge, but I tried to offer the same rationale as in the OSM scenario for two committed couples, who love each and their families to marry under civil marriage law in the remaining states. I argue that they also need to be afforded due process and equal protection and not singled out for discrimination based on unproven, untested, rhetorical tautologies with no factual findings or evidence of actual vs. perceived harm.
That is my best go at it Chairm, time to move on. The floor is yours.
Unknown, I have patiently prodded you to meet the challenge set forth in the original blogpost at the top of our exchange.
ReplyDeleteYou have skirted it and not met the challenge. That challenge is about the same-sex scenario alone. It is about the SSM ban on some same-sex twosomes (and all same-sex moresomes. You have failed to step up and deal with the problems in your argumentation.
The ball remains in your court.
Along the way you have made significant concessions that undermine your pro-SSM position.
You said:
"Heterosexual identity or opposite-sex sexual behavior do not appear to be 'essential' for civil marriage law eligibility either."
And yet the man-woman criterion is a legal requirement. If you object to it, then, your objection cannot now be on the basis of sexual orientation or supposed prejudice against gay identity.
You have conceded that there is no legal requirement making same-sex sexual behavior mandatory for those who'd SSM, anyplace where SSM has been imposed.
Yet there is the man-woman criterion, the two-sexed sexual basis that runs through marriage law but which you have skipped around, and so your objection, if it remains, to the man-woman criterion cannot be about such sexual behavior being essential to SSM.
No all-male and no all-female arrangement, call it whatever you feel the need to call it, can fulfil coital relations that consummate marriage, is the sexual basis for the marital presumption of paternity, and is the basis upon which grounds of adultery can be established. There is no same-sex sexual basis that has the same coherency for both the all-male, the all-female, let alone the male-female combinations of people in sexual types of relationships. That is because these combinations are not similarly situated.
This stares you in the face and yet you attempt to brazen out your denials.
Not working here. Your opposition to the man-woman criterion of marriage law remains, well, unknown.
As is your support for the ban on some same-sex twosomes and all same-sex moresomes -- wherever SSM has been imposed or enacted.
Marriage law stood been under an intact sky far longer than the imposition of SSM has stood in a few places under the supremacy of gay identity politics. The marriage idea has withstood the test of time; the SSM idea, not so much.
ReplyDeleteYour sky is not falling rhetoric is boilerplate SSM but empty and misleading.
Just as your reference to interracial marriage is empty rhetoric. If it was taken as a serious remark, then, it would place the SSM idea on par with the idea promoted by racialists who sought to impose their identity politics as supreme over marriage law.
They too sought to selectively segregate the sexes through an identity filter; they too sought to undermine (and negate in key ways) the provision for responsible procreation -- again based on the surpemacy of identity politics over the core meaning of marriage.
Unfortunately, todya's SSMers are the inheritors of an anti-marriage viewpoint that is closely analagous with the racialists who stood against inter-racial marriage.
The truth is that there is one human race and its nature is two-sexed. Right there shows a fundamental difference between the SSM idea and the marriage idea; and that points directly at the comparison of the SSM rhetoric/argumentation and that of the white supremcists.
It is alarming (even if interesting) that the SSM would also segregate by sexual attraction. The all-male type of sexual relationship would exclude attraction to the female sex; the all-female type of sexual relationship would exclude attraction to the male sex; and the male-female sexual type of relationship would include both attraction to the male sex and attraction the female sex. Once again, the segregative idea is the one lauded by SSMers.
Within the polygamous type of marriage practice there is sexual attraction to both male and female; there are both sexes, man and woman; also, based on this sex difference the practice is comprised of a series of husband-wife marriages (not one group marriage). But the core meaning of marriage provides the direct context for societal concerns regarding sex integration and responsible procreation. This core meaning is highly relevant to the ban on polygamy.
That core is rejected by those who favor the SSM idea. And, perhaps unsurprisingly, many bigots who hated mormons at the time were intent on banning polygamy primarily in the name of religous identity politics. That was unjust cause for the ban; however, the ban remains justified based on what marriage actually is.
SSMers today support the ban -- and often talk of how awful religious cults are and so forth as if that was decisively on point (but it is not). They, again, resemble the hawkers of racialist identity politics and religious identity politics of the past.
The alarm ought to shake people from such a heavy reliance on identity politics.
The US Supreme Court case on inter-racial marriage fits the pro-marriage argumentation much better, far better, than SSMers are comfortable admitting.
Typo correction:
ReplyDeleteMarriage law has stood under an intact sky far longer than the imposition of SSM has stood in a few places under the supremacy of gay identity politics. The marriage idea has withstood the test of time; the SSM idea, not so much.
* * *
Unknown, you also conceded something about parental rights and responsiblities when you said:
"The requirements for parental rights and responsibilities are pretty well established in civil law."
The sexual basis for the marital presumption of paternity is firmly established in civil law. Rights and responsiblities flow from it every day of the year.
The law does not create that sexual basis but acknwoledges it. The SSM idea rejects it. Huge contradiction with your claim to look to the law for guidance.
There is no sexual basis for a legal presumption that an all-male relationship entailed one man impregnating another; nor for the all-female relationship. Such sex-segregative arrangements cannot consent to the sexual basis for the marital presumption of paternity.
You do not need a civil law case to know that, surely.
What follows> Well, if that two-sexed sexual basis is irrelevant to marriage law, as you might hope, then, no husband-wife can have consented to it when they married.
Yet the legal record shows otherwise.
And, if the sexual basis was irrelevant, the marital relationship would not include a legal presumption that arises from that sexual basis, is rebutted (on a case-by-case basis) with criteria drawn directly from it, and the consent to marry would exclude it for all unions of husband and wife.
Not some. All. Right at the start. See sexual consummation. See sexual basis for annulment. See adultery. Right at the outset these are part and parcel of the marital relationship type in our laws.
This sexual basis is not an add-on. It is not an afterthought. It is not dependant on Government peering into the marital bedroom to force people to engage in it. It is the default and a very reasonable one at that.
Married couples can be held to it because it is the default, not because they feel like it. Society, too, is held to it.
But it is foreign to SSM. So, if we are to recast marriage so that the all-male and the all-female relationship types are similarly situated to the husband-wife type of relationship, then, the sexual basis for the marital presumption (and for consummation, adultery, annulment) cannot remain. It makes them differently situated.
There, the SSM idea -- as argued by yourself and your fellow SSM supporters -- destroys one of the most vigorously enforced legal presumptions in our legal system.
Ah, but what if the legal system skips past this and pretends there is no contradiction? Well, you seem to think that is the way it is and will be where SSM has been imposed.
That is your concession, Unknown, that the SSM law treats the one-sexed scenario differently than the two-sexed scenario. And not just for these particular legal expressions of the core meaning of marriage.
The ban on polygamy is not a ban on one-sexed scenarios because polygamy is the series of marriages that one man forms with multiple women, one woman at-a-time.
ReplyDeleteThe problems associated with it, such as they are, do not arise from same-sex sexual behavior nor from gay identity but from something extrinsic to the SSM idea and the argumentation used to promote that idea.
If you point outside of SSM in an attempt to justify the SSM ban on some same-sex twosomes (and on all same-sex moresomes), then, you have conceded that the relationship types are differently situated.
We are not to read your lips and take your words at face value, otherwise.
SSM is outside of marriage. The union of husband and wife is not similarily situated with SSM. Polygamy has zilch to do with the same-sex scenario.
Which returns you to the problems you think have been unearthed in SSM civil law cases. Since you can point to none, thusfar, you have shot yourself in the foot.
You rely on what does not exist. And since the same-sex scenario does not include a man marrying multiple wives, you cannot rely on polygamy as the basis for the SSM ban on SSM-in-series nor on group SSM.
* * *
Another concession: "Current civil marriage law prohibits both so called multiple SSM's and OSM's."
No, current marriage law (no need to add the "civil", it does not make the phrase more precise) includes the man-woman criterion.
In the few places where SSM has been imposed, there remains an outright lack of justification, based on the same-sex scenario, for a ban on some same-sex twomes (those who'd form SSMs with relatives and those who'd form SSMs in series) and on all same-sex moresomes.
Where's the harm, Unknown? Don't play tautological games, right? Don't pretend that sex equality is imperiled more in the type of relationship that has a group of persons of the same sex than in a same-sex twosome; nor that a series of same-sex twosomes has less sex-equality within it than one same-sex twosome. The lack of the other sex defeats the very notion of greater sex-equality due to the persons being counted beyond the number two.
We have discussed the lack of sex equality in a type of relationship that lacks or excludes the other sex; also I have pointed out the lack of sexual orientation equality within this type of relationship.
So there can be no relevant concern about sex equality nor with sexual orientation equality within SSM-in-series nor within group SSM. Yet societal concerns about sex equality within the polygamous type of relationship was brought to the fore whenever SSMers try to conjure up some kind of basis for the bans.
Big concessions have added up on your side of the het as you have repeatedly missed the ball -- because you have refused to meet the challenge.
Related people can and do marry, Unknown, so there are exceptions.
ReplyDeleteWherever SSM has been imposed, related people can and do SSM. More exceptions right within the very jurisdictions you pointed at.
Since the exception destroys the general rule, as per your own argumentation, you have a rather large problem explaining your support for the SSM ban on some related people who'd SSM.
The two-sexed basis for the marriage ban on some related people does not work in the one-sex-short scenario. The marital type of relationship is sexually consummated by two-sexes; the sexual basis for the maritla presumption of paternity is not one-sexed nor sex-neutral; the sexual basis for the annulment provisions and adultery are all part of the coherent whole -- the marriage idea -- whose two-sexed sexual basis is extrinsic to the same-sex scenario -- comprised of related people or unrelated people.
Remember, you conceded that there is no legal requirement for same-sex sexual behvior -- so it cannot be about incestuous sexual behavior; and you have insisted that procreation is not at the core so you can't rely on societal concerns about incestuous procreation.
Given that the socital concerns about these very things are very much embedded in the justification for the marriage ban on some related people, your SSM argumentation poses a direct threat to the reasonable laws of marriage in our legal system.
You can't rely on moral arguments for morality is supposedly out of bounds when it comes to lawmaking on SSM-as-marriage. You can't rely on tradition or custom or the way it has been for a long time. YOu are left with just the bare naked SSM idea which has no justification for the ban.
None. None you have come up with -- and you are not alone on that score.
* * *
Unknown, your posed a stated standard upon which your entire position now stands or falls:
"Rhetorical tautologies may work well in the public square, but sometimes, not well in a court of law where they are properly vetted and tested."
And:
"[courts should nto make decisions] based on unproven, untested, rhetorical tautologies with no factual findings or evidence of actual vs. perceived harm."
You are now stripped of any pretense of having a reasonable argument. For the SSM argumentation that has resulted in a few pro-SSM court opinions has depended, utterly, on exactly what you have just ruled out of order.
The abuse of judicial review does not help you in this discussion nor does it change the profound flaws in SSM argumentation. Nothing you have said here has managed to covered up those flaws either.
You have not met the challenge and this stands much more clearly with your having stated that standard on the record.
* * *
The flimsy "me-too" demands that color the SSM rhetoric illustrtates that the SSM idea is impoverished when compared with the deep roots and the foundational societal concerns that enrich the time-tested marriage idea.
The best you have done, Unknown, is demonstrate that while you claim to rely on the law, your demand for SSM is arbitrary (i.e. unjustified by your own argumentation) and relies on misapplying the label, marriage, to a subset of nonmarriage. You rely on an arbitrary use of governmental power to impose what you have failed, utterly, to justify, even according to your own rules of argumentation your own stated standards.
I am very dissappointed with the amount of pixels it has taken to confirm that you had not intention of taking a swing at the ball.
That's okay, in the end, now we can put aside the pretense that it was the challenge (as stated in the blogpost) that you came here to discuss.
What is your real interest here? Perhaps we can accomodate you more closely.
Cheers,
Chairm Ohn