Free debate at NCC on Same-Sex Marriage - Do We Need a Federal Marriage Amendment?

The following event will be at the Constitution Center. It's labelled as free.

Same-Sex Marriage - Do We Need a Federal Marriage Amendment?

Join panelists Judge Robert H. Bork, one of the authors of the Federal Marriage Amendment; Gary Bauer of American Family Values; Yale law professor William Eskridge, and other national experts for a panel discussion and moderated debate about the constitutionality of same-sex marriage. The program, moderated by NCC President and CEO Richard Stengel, will give audience members the opportunity to ask questions and debate the issues with the panelists.

A cash bar will be available from 6:00 - 6:30 P.M.

Annenberg Center for Education and Outreach
Kirby Auditorium
Admission is free.
Call 215-409-6700 for reservations.

Event Details

Why don't they just let whomever wants to get married, get married? I don't see why there's such a big to-do. If two people love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together, as well as get the benifits of being married, it's nobody else's business.

Sidhe

Originally posted by Lady Sidhe
Why don't they just let whomever wants to get married, get married? <snip>

Sidhe

Because people are stupid and can't think around their religious hindrances.

Originally posted by Lady Sidhe
Why don't they just let whomever wants to get married, get married? I don't see why there's such a big to-do. If two people love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together, as well as get the benifits of being married, it's nobody else's business.

Sidhe

...and a corrolary that follows is that if three or four consenting adults want to 'marry' all the others in the group, they should be free to do so also. If someone wants to marry an uncle and/or a sister, its nobody else's business, they're consenting adults. If they want to marry a doorknob, that's fine too. Pets can't consent so that's out.

Originally posted by Slartibartfast


...and a corrolary that follows is that if three or four consenting adults want to 'marry' all the others in the group, they should be free to do so also. If someone wants to marry an uncle and/or a sister, its nobody else's business, they're consenting adults. If they want to marry a doorknob, that's fine too. Pets can't consent so that's out.

As long as there is no governmental benefit, involvement or regulation then more power to them.

Whatever civil contracts they wish to involve themselves in is there business.

Marriage is a religious status and using my taxes to regulate it is problematic at best.

Originally posted by Slartibartfast


...and a corrolary that follows is that if three or four consenting adults want to 'marry' all the others in the group, they should be free to do so also. If someone wants to marry an uncle and/or a sister, its nobody else's business, they're consenting adults. If they want to marry a doorknob, that's fine too. Pets can't consent so that's out.

Jesus....are you really THAT literal?

No, that is not a valid corrolary. The issue is GAY marriage. Not marriage to relatives, pets, or more than one person (if you want to do that, become a Mormon). :p

You can't marry a doorknob or any other inanimate object, because it can't consent :rolleyes:

Besides, we can't marry relatives because then we'd have to worry about rights for two-headed children with gills:3eye: --at least the ones who survived, anyway.


Sidhe

Imagine a nasty four-way divorce with a house and two children in the middle .:eek:

___LS

Jesus....are you really THAT literal?

___

No, but I like to carry arguments to absurd limits.

___LS

No, that is not a valid corrolary. The issue is GAY marriage. Not marriage to relatives, pets, or more than one person (if you want to do that, become a Mormon). :p

____

By altering the marriage law from being exclusively for one man and one woman into something else, you are saying that whatever reason exists behind that law is invalid. This is no small change.

If we are talking about changing definitions, once you allow that the change is possible, you have to ask how far the change should go.

Troubleshooter has a good approach. Maybe government has no place setting marriage laws at all. Maybe people should write up their own nuptial agreements that detail exactly what the partnership will entail for all inolved parties.


____LS

You can't marry a doorknob or any other inanimate object, because it can't consent :rolleyes:

____

But it doesn't have to consent, it's inanimate and has no opinion either way.
Okay, I was being silly.

____LS

Besides, we can't marry relatives because then we'd have to worry about rights for two-headed children with gills:3eye: --at least the ones who survived, anyway.

____

but they are consenting adults... would you stop two non-related adults that have serious genetic defects from trying to have children? How is this different? And again, I'm being intentionally obtuse, but there is a point floating around here somewhere.

Originally posted by Slartibartfast
No, but I like to carry arguments to absurd limits.

Sometimes that is all the fun that is to be had with some topics...

Originally posted by Slartibartfast
Troubleshooter has a good approach. Maybe government has no place setting marriage laws at all. Maybe people should write up their own nuptial agreements that detail exactly what the partnership will entail for all inolved parties.

The gov't does have a stake in how people choose to partner themselves, but the religious standard isn't the one to go by anymore.

Maybe if someone came up with a new religion.

Originally posted by Slartibartfast
but they are consenting adults... would you stop two non-related adults that have serious genetic defects from trying to have children? How is this different? And again, I'm being intentionally obtuse, but there is a point floating around here somewhere.

I do have a concern with genetic defectives breeding. That being said, I don't know what to do about it though. From the strictly species-centric viewpoint it's bad, very bad. It's reintroducing weakness into the genepool. From the humanity standpoint it's still bad but to stop them would arguably infringe upon their liberties.

Edit: forgot to reply to the third not-point

"By altering the marriage law from being exclusively for one man and one woman into something else, you are saying that whatever reason exists behind that law is invalid. "


I'm curious....I've looked, but I can't find anything that specifically says that marriage MUST consist of one male and one female. Maybe I'm not looking in the right place, or maybe it's just an assumption that's been around for so long that it's not questioned. If anyone can find where it says "marriage is only to be between a man and a woman," or something similar, please direct me to it, because this assumption is one of the problems I have with this whole to-do.


Secondly, people seem to forget that there's a separation of church and state for a reason. Religion has no place in politics, and it is religion that inspires the "anti-gay" opinion.

If the church doesn't want to let them get married, there's no reason that Domestic Unions shouldn't be allowed. Get a JP and do the deed. People need to attend to their own business and let others attend to theirs. They're not hurting anyone, so what's the problem?


And there is a limit to how close genetically we can marry because of the possible genetic results. That's a valid reason. Just because you don't like someone's sexual preference is NOT a valid reason.


And as far as multiple marriage, I see it the same way that I see open marriages: What's the point? Why be forced to support these extra wives, or husbands, and children, if all you want to do is sleep with more than one person? Just DO it. There's no point in getting married.


Sidhe

Originally posted by Lady Sidhe
And as far as multiple marriage, I see it the same way that I see open marriages: What's the point? Why be forced to support these extra wives, or husbands, and children, if all you want to do is sleep with more than one person? Just DO it. There's no point in getting married.


Sidhe

That's because you're stuck on the judeo-christian concept of marriage. Multiple marriage exists around the world, and is stable and productive.

Is there a place where multiple marriage isn't paired with patriarchy and female subjugation?

I think it definitely doesn't have to be, but I'm just curious if there are any positive examples.

Why don't they just let whomever wants to get married, get married? I don't see why there's such a big to-do. If two people love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together, as well as get the benifits of being married, it's nobody else's business.

'zactly.
Course the only reason I can ever see myself getting married is tax reasons.

Originally posted by Lady Sidhe
Why don't they just let whomever wants to get married, get married? I don't see why there's such a big to-do. If two people love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together, as well as get the benifits of being married, it's nobody else's business.

Sidhe

Yeah...what she said! :mad:

Originally posted by Troubleshooter


That's because you're stuck on the judeo-christian concept of marriage. Multiple marriage exists around the world, and is stable and productive.

No, I'm not stuck on the judeo-christian concept of marriage. You know better. It's much simpler than that. I'm straight-up jealous. I don't share.


Sidhe

By altering the marriage law from being exclusively for one man and one woman into something else, you are saying that whatever reason exists behind that law is invalid. This is no small change.

If we are talking about changing definitions, once you allow that the change is possible, you have to ask how far the change should go.

The reasons behind anti-gay laws preventing them from exercising their right to marry whomever they choose ARE as invalid as laws against interracial marriages were in the past.

Marriage is a right, not a priviledge. And if government will sanction or recognize the marriage of any group it must recognize it for all groups of consenting adults.

If any people want to marry each other, the government has no legitimate authority to deny them access to marriage or to treat their marriage differently under the law. It wouldn't matter if 8 people wanted to marry each other and 4 of them were related, nobody has a right to prevent their marriage.

ALL AMERICANS have the same rights regardless of thier gender, age, religion, race, etc. and nobody (including government) holds any authority to tell them whom they may or may not marry.

Even calling it something other than the word "marriage" would be a violation. Even using a different form would be a violation.

Nobody is redefining marriage. Marriage has ALWAYS been the union of people who love each other and it would continue to be such.

Marriage ceased being a purely religious ceremony the moment the first civil marriage was performed. I find it really funny when people say they want to protect the "institution" of marriage. As though gay people getting married would do anything to harm an institution where 2 out of 3 couples get divorced.

Originally posted by Radar


The reasons behind anti-gay laws preventing them from exercising their right to marry whomever they choose [b]ARE as invalid as laws against interracial marriages were in the past.

Marriage is a right, not a priviledge. And if government will sanction or recognize the marriage of any group it must recognize it for all groups of consenting adults.

ALL AMERICANS have the same rights regardless of thier gender, age, religion, race, etc. and nobody (including government) holds any authority to tell them whom they may or may not marry. .

Nobody is redefining marriage. Marriage has ALWAYS been the union of people who love each other and it would continue to be such.

Marriage ceased being a purely religious ceremony the moment the first civil marriage was performed. I find it really funny when people say they want to protect the "institution" of marriage. As though gay people getting married would do anything to harm an institution where 2 out of 3 couples get divorced. [/B]

OMFG!:eek: Ummm...don't flame me anyone, but, um...I have to agreewithradarhere *ducks*


Sidhe

It's the first time you've agreed with a libertarian philosophy on a position.

I don't think it's so much the Libertarian philosophy, but just the idea that marriage shouldn't be restricted because of prejudice. Either way, I agree with what you said.

Sidhe