Quote:
Originally Posted by Larv
I don’t see the philosophical point here. Who ever said anybody will be harmed by same-sex marriages? Is anybody ever harmed by opposite-sex marriage?
|
My primary point was not philosophical in nature, but instead Constitutional.
As per the Constitution of these United States, and the consistent and one-sided SCOTUS rulings regarding the
Establishment Clause in the
First Amendment, all laws and rules must have a relevant secular purpose (see also
the Lemon Test). Most commonly, laws and rules which prohibit actions, or which allow the differential conferment of state granted benefits and privileges, are in place to prevent harm to others. For instance, laws against rape, murder, theft of property, etc.
As you rightly described in your post above, same sex marriage does not cause any harm to others, which supports my own point that there is no relevant secular purpose for preventing it from being treated as an
Equal Protections issue as per the
14th Amendment. State recognized marriage is granted to opposite sex couples (along with
numerous benefits and privileges... about 1,138 of them), ergo any attempts to prevent the state from offering that same recognition (and conferment of benefits) to same sex couples must provide a relevant secular purpose for so doing.
If you are, or anyone else is, aware of any constitutional secular reasons for prohibiting marriage between two humans of the same sex, then I'd welcome hearing it. Thus far in these debates, I've yet to hear a single one, and all opinions have tended to be motivated by bigotry, iron age fairy tales, or some combination of both.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larv
Just to keep this thread on track, I don’t think there is anything unnatural about same-sex “marriage,” because I don’t think there is anything unnatural about homosexuals. I’m just asking why the definition of “marriage”—the legal definition—has to be split up and parsed out to please special groups. Which group is next in line for special consideration?
|
Here's where I think the crux of your position fails. Marriage is not defined by the gender of those wed, but is instead defined as the union of two people (generally whom are in love). Marriage defines the
relationship, not which genitals the partners in said relationship are required to have.
When we begin with the correct definition of marriage, as a word defining the state recognized union of two people... a union which confers a multitude of privileges and benefits from the state... a state bound by the secular guarantees of our constitution... then we realize that there is no issue... no "special groups," no "parsing" required.
Marriage defines the relationship, not the genitals those united must have to be recognized.
Also, just to remind you, I educated you on exactly this just over a month ago in this same thread
when I also discussed how the Christian Church itself performed gay marriages as far back as the 11th and 12th centuries).
