Scotland becomes 17th country to approve same-sex marriage

A place for discussion of current events. Buddhist news would be particularly appreciated.

Re: Scotland becomes 17th country to approve same-sex marria

Postby Adi » Thu Apr 03, 2014 5:12 am

Zhen Li wrote:
Incredibly smart lawyers were paid millions of dollars to find any objections to same-sex marriage that would pass the test of law and reason and none were found. Same result (or lack of result, actually) in Europe and America, and in other parts of the world.

I'm not opposed to the proposition of same-sex marriage (I am just in favour of state non-recognition of all marriage), but I think that's a very unfair characterisation of the arguments against it.


Not in the United States it is not. This has been affirmed as fact by dozens of courts, thousands of pages of motions and decisions, and countless hours of argument, testimony, and debate.


If you spend some time and effort, you will find arguments with just as much sophistication for, as against.


Your assumption here is incorrect. I've spent a great deal of time and effort and independently came to the same conclusion the lawyers did, which was there are not any good arguments let alone any with sophistication against the legalization of same-sex marriage in the US.

Adi
Adi
 
Posts: 328
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 10:45 pm

Re: Scotland becomes 17th country to approve same-sex marria

Postby JamyangTashi » Thu Apr 03, 2014 5:59 am

Adi wrote:Your assumption here is incorrect. I've spent a great deal of time and effort and independently came to the same conclusion the lawyers did, which was there are not any good arguments let alone any with sophistication against the legalization of same-sex marriage in the US.


There is no way to "prove" the purpose of state recognition of marriage in the first place, which is one common basis of disagreement. State recognized marriages are an arbitrary social construct, and the purpose behind it is not universally agreed upon. The different perspectives on the purpose of state recognized marriage are neither right nor wrong. They are simply personal values and perceptions. Trying to convince others to hold to the same beliefs and values as oneself is often a losing proposition. Viewing such values and beliefs in terms of "right" and "wrong" leads to vilification when dialog would be more fruitful.
JamyangTashi
 
Posts: 102
Joined: Tue Jan 21, 2014 3:01 am

Re: Scotland becomes 17th country to approve same-sex marria

Postby Adi » Thu Apr 03, 2014 7:12 am

JamyangTashi wrote:There is no way to "prove" the purpose of state recognition of marriage in the first place, which is one common basis of disagreement. State recognized marriages are an arbitrary social construct, and the purpose behind it is not universally agreed upon…..


Surprisingly to some, these purposes held little or no weight in the US legal conclusions. The fact of state-sanctioned marriage was accepted by everyone and not under debate. Rather it was a matter of equal protection under the law. And one of the law's great purposes is to negate the influence of any one set of personal values and opinions in favor of equality under the law for everyone. The fact that no one could come up with a sound legal reason for excluding one class of people from state-sanctioned marriage is instructive.

Parenthetically, I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. Rather I hope that people with interest in the issue will take time to read all the work that has been done by others and see what held up and what didn't. That way the time-tested ways of skepticism, rational argument and reason can have a chance against uncritical acceptance, untested notions of right and wrong, and unsounded tradition.

Adi
Adi
 
Posts: 328
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 10:45 pm

Re: Scotland becomes 17th country to approve same-sex marria

Postby JamyangTashi » Thu Apr 03, 2014 7:35 am

Adi wrote:
JamyangTashi wrote:There is no way to "prove" the purpose of state recognition of marriage in the first place, which is one common basis of disagreement. State recognized marriages are an arbitrary social construct, and the purpose behind it is not universally agreed upon…..


Surprisingly to some, these purposes held little or no weight in the US legal conclusions. The fact of state-sanctioned marriage was accepted by everyone and not under debate. Rather it was a matter of equal protection under the law. And one of the law's great purposes is to negate the influence of any one set of personal values and opinions in favor of equality under the law for everyone. The fact that no one could come up with a sound legal reason for excluding one class of people from state-sanctioned marriage is instructive.


This is narrowing the meaning of "arguments against it" to mean only legal arguments that influence legal conclusions, rather than the broader debate over the issue. The purposes perceived to be behind the institution of marriage often drives debates over whether the legal conclusions that were reached were desirable or not. These purposes also still do influence the legal debates because marriage provides unequal treatment of certain couples under various laws compared to the treatment that others receive in terms of things like property rights and taxes. Several classes of people are still excluded from the ability to opt for this special treatment, such as blood relatives or groupings of more than two people. Excluding these groups from the special property and tax treatment enjoyed by others seems to assume some kind of purpose behind the law to justify why such an exclusion would be made.
JamyangTashi
 
Posts: 102
Joined: Tue Jan 21, 2014 3:01 am

Re: Scotland becomes 17th country to approve same-sex marria

Postby Adi » Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:07 am

JamyangTashi wrote:This is narrowing the meaning of "arguments against it" to mean only legal arguments that influence legal conclusions, rather than the broader debate over the issue.


I was responding to a point about legal arguments since that was the issue and the thread is about an act of parliament.

Outside such places there is of course much broad debate about most things. :)
Adi
 
Posts: 328
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 10:45 pm

Re: Scotland becomes 17th country to approve same-sex marria

Postby Zhen Li » Thu Apr 03, 2014 4:36 pm

Surprisingly to some, these purposes held little or no weight in the US legal conclusions. The fact of state-sanctioned marriage was accepted by everyone and not under debate. Rather it was a matter of equal protection under the law. And one of the law's great purposes is to negate the influence of any one set of personal values and opinions in favor of equality under the law for everyone. The fact that no one could come up with a sound legal reason for excluding one class of people from state-sanctioned marriage is instructive.

Well, it's undeniable that regardless of whether one is homosexual or heterosexual, one was always entitled to lawful matrimony. Matrimony can't be homosexual, nor can the sacrament of holy matrimony (which I obviously don't believe in) be homosexual, for the obvious reason that both require the ability to confer to one party the capacity of being a mother, hence the Latin root. The legal benefits of lawful matrimony were open to any legal person regardless of whether they wish to engage in the ritual or sacrament of matrimony, or marriage in the form of civil partnership, or at least that was the case in most of the commonwealth and many states - in some of which it is still the case. The question fundamentally comes down to not redefining matrimony, for one cannot, the term has a priori heterosexual assumptions, but rather, changing all marriages to non-matrimonial marriages, therefore rendering all marriages civil partnerships. Really, the onus would be on the party wishing to engage in this rather bureaucratic and strange transformation to prove why this is meaningful or fair in any sense, and not upon the party wishing to maintain a traditional institution. It is not simply a question of equality under the law, since that was already maintained for every legal person, it is a question of why partakers in matrimony should be subject to having their ritual treated equally to civil partnership - because clearly they are neither equal nor the same.
This is narrowing the meaning of "arguments against it" to mean only legal arguments that influence legal conclusions, rather than the broader debate over the issue. The purposes perceived to be behind the institution of marriage often drives debates over whether the legal conclusions that were reached were desirable or not. These purposes also still do influence the legal debates because marriage provides unequal treatment of certain couples under various laws compared to the treatment that others receive in terms of things like property rights and taxes. Several classes of people are still excluded from the ability to opt for this special treatment, such as blood relatives or groupings of more than two people. Excluding these groups from the special property and tax treatment enjoyed by others seems to assume some kind of purpose behind the law to justify why such an exclusion would be made.

This is precisely the case. The simple fact that not all people are equal, and certainly that not all people have an equal relation to all other people, either in the eyes of the law or naturally, should make it obvious why arguments that only rely upon equality simply can't hold water. People must be treated with discrimination and delicate appreciation for their situation and status, to do otherwise would be injustice.
Image
User avatar
Zhen Li
 
Posts: 970
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:15 am

Re: Scotland becomes 17th country to approve same-sex marria

Postby Johnny Dangerous » Fri Apr 11, 2014 9:43 pm

Thread split to here:

viewtopic.php?f=47&t=16133
"Just as a lotus does not grow out of a well-levelled soil but from the mire, in the same way the awakening mind
is not born in the hearts of disciples in whom the moisture of attachment has dried up. It grows instead in the hearts of ordinary sentient beings who possess in full the fetters of bondage." -Se Chilbu Choki Gyaltsen
User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 2442
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA

Previous

Return to News & Current Events

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests

>