A secular case against SSM

[_John Larsen]

1. What reasons did governments have to regulate and sanction (i.e. extend the legal right of marriage to) opposite-sex marriages to begin with?

Absolutely none. The only thing the government should be concerned about is the general welfare of the children. 100s of years of common law show that we can deal with issues of paternity and care of children quite independent from marriage.

[_BishopRic]

... does it make sense to legalize SSM?

This is the only part of the post I'll respond to, and the answer is yes.

Why? Because there are gay people who want to be married. And following my religion of the Golden Rule, we all have rights as long as we don't hurt others.

I think it fits that rule.

[_wenglund]

Wade,

What if a critic started a thread called, A scientific case against the Book of Mormon. And then in the thread, asked questions like:

"List all the reasons scientists have for believing the Mayan civilization existed."

"Do these same reasons apply to the people wrote about in the Book of Mormon?"

Would you think that you were being set up, that the point of the thread in advance would be to reject the Book of Mormon no matter what answers were given?

Aside from the irrelevancy of your questions and the apples and oranges comparison, my answer to your off-topic question is "No"--and this because I tend not to be paranoid or conspiratorally minded.

Let's see...we have had four out of four response thus far to my OP, and not a single one of them makes even the slightest attempt to answer my reasonable questions. Why am I not surprised? What will be interesting to see is, how many pages this thread will get before even one person favoring SSM will actually engage what I have asked.

Thank's, -Wade Englund-

[Gadianton]

Signed,

Wade Englund, Ph.D.
Professor of Moral Philosophy, Stanford University

I make no such claim, nor have I yet to mention morals. But, you have the dubious honor of posting the seventh of seven evasive responses to my OP.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_JohnStuartMill]

Wade, the reason that nobody is responding seriously is not that they're afraid of your towering intellect. It is that you are not a serious poster.

[_beastie]

In addition, anyone who follows MAD in the least has watched you start quite a few of these threads, with the result of you declaring even serious responses invalid. Interacting with you on this issue is a waste of time, but I am quite interested in your answers to my questions. I started another thread for it.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Hi there, Wade. I'll go ahead and do my best:

1. What reasons did governments have to regulate and sanction (i.e. extend the legal right of marriage to) opposite-sex marriages to begin with?

Well, I'm not that familiar with the history of marriage law, but as far as I know, EAllusion already answered your question, and I believe he's correct:

That said, governmental regulation of marriage arose organically and independently in different cultures generally, though not exclusively, as a means of forming, controlling, and resolving disputes over property distribution between families.

Can you cite or quote a different reason?

2. Do these same reasons apply to SSM?

Yes, of course.

3. What has been the track-record of legalized SSM thus far?

So far as I know, just fine.

4. With the answers to the above questions in mind, does it make sense to legalize SSM?

Yes, of course.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

My pleasure, Wade.

[_Roger Morrison]

I contend that discussions on SSM tend to approach the issue upside-down (the onus is errantly put on those wishing to preserve traditional marriage rather than on those who are requesting the change, and the question possed tends to be "why not SSM?" rather than as it should be "why SSM?") and such discussions tend to devolve into appeals to emotion and name-calling rather than resorting to carefully reasoned arguments that seek everyone's best interest.

It is my intent here to turn the discussion of this issue rightside-up and to consider the matter rationally. With that in mind, and since we are talking about laws and rights governing marriage, there is a series of points that I believe may prove useful to reasonably consider in logical sequence.

The rationale in doing so is, for nearly a quarter century now, gay advocates have been asking governments around the world to conduct a radical social experiment on the foundational institution of society. Instead of mindlessly acquessing (as has happened in a few nations and states), it makes sense for concerned citizens to carefully consider whether such a move makes sense and has a good chance of acting to improve the human condition and progess mankind, on behalf of our children in particular..

1. What reasons did governments have to regulate and sanction (i.e. extend the legal right of marriage to) opposite-sex marriages to begin with?

2. Do these same reasons apply to SSM?

3. What has been the track-record of legalized SSM thus far?

4. With the answers to the above questions in mind, does it make sense to legalize SSM?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

sorry wade can't get this to work... will try another means... roger

[_karl61]

wade wrote:

"Wrong. It also matters in determining the nature of the right (negative or positive, permission or entitlement, universal or limited, absolute or conditional), as well as from whence the right is derived (naturally or legally), and the rational basis for the "right"."

What is the difference between a natural right and a legal right? Natural to me is something that's nice to think about in theory but I think that all our rights are legal rights, whether given through an Executive order, Judicial decision or via the Legislature.

[_BishopRic]

I suppose I could start a thread that attempted to have a serious discussion about whether Cinderella's coach would have turned back into a pumpkin at 12:00 or 12:01...but I don't think many really care.

Same with this. As the congressional leader in Iowa said when he signed off on the recent law, "the younger generation just doesn't care...we've already lost the battle!"