By the way, if you don't like a companys views...don't eat there. When they're all like that ...don't go out to eat...eat at home. How many people quit going to KFC when they said, c'mon over here, we'll serve the gays?. I don't eat there, never will again. My choice. And Greg K?....I wouldn't be giving that guy to many accalades either. I wrote his site for some answers and got a bunch of nonsense runaround from Tom. Greg and Bill....you scratch my back and i'll scratch yours...rubbish. Don't you guys know that God knows what you do?.
People take "discrimination" definitions way to far. I'd never open a business mostly because I'm not going to let the govt. tell me who I have to serve, who I have to hire, what I can say. America has long considered itself a christian nation but it's easy to see that it's nowhere near a christian nation, unless you want to define christian as something differently as in the bible. It's no wonder so many other nations call us hypocrits....we are. On the whole, I'm ashamed of so-called christians and of America on the whole. I'd love to leave, but where to go...the whole world is going in Satans direction.
It should NOT be up to the government who gets married and who doesn't, it should be up to the church. The role of the government is not to decide who's married and who isn't it's to protect are rights.
Dr. Craig, I respect the intelligent and non-inflammatoryway you address the homosexuality issue. I love the fact that you opposehomosexuality without making appeals to emotion. You give solid reasons foryour positions, and I think that is something missing from much of Christianteaching on this topic.
The law actually does treat everyone equally. A gay man cannot marry a man and a straight man cannot marry a man. A straight man can marry a woman and a gay man can marry a woman. The law treats everyone the same. For there to be a different outcome, then the law need to be changed. As it is written, it treats the gay man and straight man the same. They both can marry a woman. They both can't marry a man. Their wants are irrelevant in regards to the law.
Christians don't evaluate and reject the ritual prohibitions in the Old Testament--it was the sacrifice of Jesus that allowed them to discard the entire package. So why are they trying to salvage just the ritual prohibition against homosexuality? Seems to me that a strong argument can be made within Christianity that we should discard the Old Testament rejection of homosexuality.http://www.patheos.com/blogs/c...
They are not separate issues, the issue is the same. The issue is being able to marry your partners.
This is simply a straw-man argument. I didn't say adults and children have the same rights. Everyone has the same rights. That means everyone has the exact same right to vote when they turn 18.
"But you can't: some discrimination is permissible."
What right do most individuals have but is denied to a group of people? Free speech? Everyone has the right to free speech including Neo Nazis and the KKK. Voting? Everyone has the exact same right to vote at age 18.
Seeing that we are at war with radicals Islam, discrimination against Islam should be permissible. Are we singling out Islamic people in airports? No, we are not.
You just proved my prediction correct. Why don't you just answer the question? Why do you have such a problem answering direct questions?
"It's predicted on the fact that our current marriage laws are unjustly discriminatory."
That is not a fact. That is your opinion.
"The freedom to marry a person of the opposite-sex entails the freedom for heterosexuals to marry one's own partner."
You changed the freedom or right again. The freedom is not the right to marry your partner.
"Unless the restriction is justified, which is a point you're still unable to understand. "
Disagreeing with you does not equate to misunderstanding you.
I re-listened to Craig's podcast, and I'm a bit stunned at how he (mis)represents the "gay marriage" position as seeking to allow only gay people to get married (3:21). Does he really think advocates of "gay marriage" wish to restrict marriage to only gay people? No "gay marriage" proponent thinks this, nor is the term ever used in that way (rather, it is interchangeable with the term "same-sex marriage"). This appears to be an extreme case of distortion of Craig's part.
"No it is not. There no justified discrimination clause found in the constitution or the 14th amendment."
You simply don't understand constitutional law. How many court opinions have you read on the equal protection clause?
"You conceded that the equal protection clause intention was that all rights and laws are to be applied evenly and equally."
"evenly and equally" = to similarly situated individuals. For some reason, this point ALWAYS goes over your head.
"Even one has the right to vote."
Not true: infants (when they're infants) do not have the right to vote.
"while presupposing that homosexuals are being discriminated against."
I made no such presupposition: homosexuals ARE being discriminated against.
"It is true that not all discrimination is unjustified. That doesn't pertain to the EPC"
But it does.
"Your own argument with the EPC dictates if anyone is being denied the right to marry their partners, they are being discriminated against and should get the exact same outcome that SS couples receive."
My argument "dictates" no such conclusion: on your strawman version of my argument does. On my view, the fact that polygamists are being discriminated against doesn't mean polygamy should be legal, because (for the 100th time) that discrimination could very well be justified.
"You can literally replace gay couples with any kind of relationship arrangement and make the exact same points."
But you can't: some discrimination is permissible.
"Why didn't you answer the question?"
Because not only are they very silly, they're utterly irrelevant, for they have NOTHING to do with my objection.
"I didn't say it did have anything to do with using the "hypocritical reasoning" against SSM."
Glad you agree that your questions are irrelevant. So why ask them?
"Prediction: You will not answer my question because it will show hypocritical reasoning on your part."
Prediction: my response will go over your head and you will fail to tell me how your questions are even remotely relevant to my objection.
"Your entire argument is predicted on changing the definition of marriage."
No, it isn't. It's predicted on the fact that our current marriage laws are unjustly discriminatory.
"The right/ freedom is not, being able to marry one's partners.You have changed the right/ freedom from one man and one woman to being able to marry one's partners."
The freedom to marry a person of the opposite-sex entails the freedom for heterosexuals to marry one's own partner.
"This right does not just apply to homosexuals. This right has to apply to everyone."
Unless the restriction is justified, which is a point you're still unable to understand.
Yes, unlike heterosexuals, homosexuals are not allowed to marry their partners -- so they are prohibited from doing something that heterosexuals are free to do. If a law prohibits group A from doing X, but allows group B to do X, then the law discriminates against group A.
"You state that babies can't vote, therefore rights don't apply to everyone. This is a straw-man argument"
Actually, this a perfectly valid argument --- is everyone has (YOUR WORDS) "the same exact rights," then it would follow that infants could vote, but that is of course false.
"conflates the right with the restriction on the right."
There is no such conflation. If a right has *restrictions,* then by definition it DOESN'T apply equally to everyone.
"The baby with have the right to vote when they reach the age of 18."
I'm not disputing that. It remains the case that infants as such can't vote, and therefore they DON'T have the "same exact right" to vote as adults.
"Yes it does have a bearing on ssm."
No, it doesn't. Just because same-sex marriage should be legal, it doesn't follow on my view that polygamy should be legal (because unlike SSM, prohibiting polygamy may be justified).
"Secondly, you are attempting to separate the issues of polygamy and SSM. There are the same issue."
Nope, they are not. See above.
"Polygamist are being denied the exact same right that you claim homosexuals have. Since that is the issue, you need to address it."
Again, separate issues. Although both homosexuals and polygamists are being discriminated against, from the fact that discrimination against the former is unjustified, it doesn't follow that discrimination against the latter is unjustified. Unjustified discrimination in the case of homosexuals doesn't mean unjustified discrimination in the case of polygamists -- so distinct issues.
"When a freedom is restricted, discrimination occurs - restrictions are by definition discriminatory. So I don't see any difference between restrictions on the "freedom to marry one's partner" and restrictions on the "freedom to marry one of the opposite gender.""
Your entire argument is predicted on changing the definition of marriage. The definition/ freedom or right is any man can marry any woman or any woman can marry any man she wants.
The right/ freedom is not, being able to marry one's partners.You have changed the right/ freedom from one man and one woman to being able to marry one's partners.
You don't see the difference between "freedom to marry one's partner" and restrictions on the "freedom to marry one of the opposite gender.""
You are making the same category error that you did with interracial marriage.
"nothing in your latest response demonstrates that there is no "freedom to marry one's partner."
If the freedom/ right is the "freedom to marry one's partner" everyone has the right to marry one's partners. This right does not just apply to homosexuals. This right has to apply to everyone. That is totally different from one man having the right to marry any woman he wants.
"It's true that polygamists are being discriminated against, but that has no bearing on the issue of SSM."
Yes it does have a bearing on ssm. You are saying is your view dictates a total deconstruction of marriage and no one has a choice. They are forced to accept it. You are forcing your views on everyone else.
Secondly, you are attempting to separate the issues of polygamy and SSM. There are the same issue. The issue is the right or freedom to marry your partners. That does not only apply to SSM but anyone who wants to marry their partners and are being denied that right.
What is you position on this?
You previously said you were an agnostic and now you are saying that you do believe polygamists are being discriminated against.
It is not a separate issue at all. You are attempting to separate the issues to avoid:1. Admitting that your view dictats a total deconstruction of the instution of marriage. 2. Admitting your position is hypocritical because you are denying the exact same right to other groups that you claim homosexuals have.
Your own argument states that the issue is a person being denied the right to marry their romantic partners.Polygamist are being denied the exact same right that you claim homosexuals have. Since that is the issue, you need to address it.
Once again, you are arguing Black can Vote but you aren't sure about Hispanics.
"This simply wasn't the case when interracial marriage was legally prohibited"
The definition of marriage was and has always been the the union between one man and one woman.This is why interracial marriage violates the equal protection clause. The government was telling one man that he could marry the one woman he wanted and vice versa.
SSM is totally different. With SSM you are redefining marriage and not telling one man that he cannot marry one woman. Therefore, you have made a category error.
You are probably going to repeat the same point. If you are simply going repeat your argument that the definition of marriage was not the union between one man and one woman, answer this question:
If the definition of marriage was not the union between one man and one woman, what was it? The union between one man and a dog? The union between one man and an inanimate object?
"feel free to explain why my explanation is wrong"
You keep stating over and over again that because homosexuals are not allowed to get married the discrimination is self evident.
"This isn't true: rights apply to everyone who is similarly situated -- not literally to everyone."
Rights apply to everyone. Everyone has the right to vote when they turn 18. Everyone has the right of free speech. In fact there are gruops like the Neo Nazis or the KKK whose views are sicking but they still have the right to say them.
Your objection to this point is simply bizarre and absurd. You state that babies can't vote, therefore rights don't apply to everyone. This is a straw-man argument that conflates the right with the restriction on the right.
The right is voting and the restriction is you have to be age 18. Everyone has the right to vote at the age of 18. The baby with have the right to vote when they reach the age of 18.
This objection stems from attempting to fragment rights from all individuals to groups. You want to apply rights to groups instead of all individuals, so you can maintain the illusion of discrimination with homosexuals.
"The idea is implicit in the idea of equal protection under the law."
No it is not. There no justified discrimination clause found in the constitution or the 14th amendment. You conceded that the equal protection clause intention was that all rights and laws are to be applied evenly and equally.
Even one has the right to vote. If a law was passed that made it illegal for homosexuals to vote, it would be a clear violation of the EPC.
You are attempting to flip the issue on it's head and punt away your explanatory burden while presupposing that homosexuals are being discriminated against.
You are simply punting your explanatory burden away and asking anyone who disagrees with you to tell you one good reason why we shouldn't let ss couples get married.
"This doesn't follow - not all discrimination is unjustified. "
It is true that not all discrimination is unjustified. That doesn't pertain to the EPC and that doesn't apply to this issue. In this case, it does follow.
You own logic chain and constitutional argument dictates the criteria of discrimination is not being allowed to marry your partner. The freedom and right is being able to marry your partner.
Your own argument with the EPC dictates if anyone is being denied the right to marry their partners, they are being discriminated against and should get the exact same outcome that SS couples receive.
You can literally replace gay couples with any kind of relationship arrangement and make the exact same points.
"LMAO "Why didn't you answer the question?
When a couple can't procreate is that normal or would that be classified as a genetic disorder? If a man or woman is sterile is that a normal state or a disorder?
What would happen to the world population if everyone in the world turned gay?
"What do your questions have to do with my "hypocritical reasoning" objection?"
I didn't say it did have anything to do with using the "hypocritical reasoning" against SSM.
Prediction: You will not answer my question because it will show hypocritical reasoning on your part.
No Craig, we do not have marriage equality. If it is constitutional to only allow one man and one woman to get married, because everyone has the same right to get married under these conditions, then you are saying that our government has the constitutional power to tell us who we can marry based on their sex. Under such a system our government could tell us that we cannot marry someone of the opposite sex, regardless of our sexual orientation, and that only same sex marriage is allowed. After all, that is marriage equality, right? I don't think so.
Dan Cathy has every right to speak about his political views and spend money to support those views. However, everyone else has a right to stand up against views they disagree with. With that being said, the government has no business telling a business can't open a new location because of their political views.
Why should the government be promoting any type of sexual behavior? That isn't the job of the government. The job of the government is to protect our rights, which includes consenting adults making their own choices about sex and who they marry.
"You are simply assuming that."
Nope, I'm not simply assuming that - read it again.
"There is no justified discrimination clause found any where in the constitution."
The idea is implicit in the idea of equal protection under the law.
" If the criteria of discrimination is not being allowed to marry your partner, your own argument with the EPC dictates if anyone is being denied the right to marry their partners, they are being discriminated against too and should get the exact same outcome that SS couples receive."
This doesn't follow - not all discrimination is unjustified.
"What would happen to the world population if everyone in the world turned gay?
When a couple can't procreate is that normal or would that be classified as a genetic disorder?"
LMAO - relevance? What do your questions have to do with my "hypocritical reasoning" objection? I'm sure you won't explain.
"You have not explained why it is discriminatory. You are just assuming that it is discriminatory."
Actually, I have explained why -- feel free to explain why my explanation is wrong.
This isn't true: rights apply to everyone who is similarly situated -- not to literally everyone.
Nope, I've *actually* argued for how the government is discriminating.
It's true that polygamists are being discriminated against, but that has no bearing on the issue of SSM.
That's a separate question, one that has no bearing on SSM.
"The definition of marriage is one man and one woman."
This simply wasn't the case when interracial marriage was legally prohibited.
I think Cathy has every right to speak his views--that is guaranteed under the First Amendment. In fact, he restated his views after the controversy began. But I don't see any violation of his rights. Of course, he must deal with the consequences as a businessperson. For example, if I have a restaurant in a city that has a large Hispanic population, I have every right to say that I don't like Hispanics publicly. But, if Hispanics decide not to patronize my restaurant and politicians grandstand about how wrong this is, I can't say that my First Amendment rights are being violated, as Dr. Craig does.
" I have responded point by point, but your responses have been involving repetitions of the same argument."
I interacted with your "point by point" responses and refuted them. In particular, you gave two reasons for why the "freedom to marry one's partner" doesn't exist, and in addition to showing why your two reasons don't work, I pointed out that your rejection of my claim depends on maintaining an impossible distinction between "being free to marry one's partner" and "having the freedom to to marry one's partner. I also pointed out that the "freedom to marry one's partner" is a specific freedom entailed by the existence of the more general freedom, the "freedom to marry one of the opposite gender." My latter points (and a few others) went completely unaddressed.
" While your arguments might get you an A in first year English papers, they simply won't hold up in philosophy, especially once hitting upper division...I invite you to take some courses in philosophy."
I can't help but view these condescending remarks as an attempt by a rookie to massage a bruised ego.
Spencer This will probably be my last post, as I am not seeing any further meaningful dialogue. While your arguments might get you an A in first year English papers, they simply won't hold up in philosophy, especially once hitting upper division. I have responded point by point, but your responses have been involving repetitions of the same argument. I invite you to take some courses in philosophy.
Let me give you one final analogy, and hopefully this one will make sense to you. Imagine two different men who are wrongly accused of some crime. Let's call them Jim and Todd. Jim goes to his trial and sits through it respectfully. They end up producing enough evidence to show he is not guilty, and he is let off the hook. Todd, on the other hand, in recognizing he is wrongly accused, decides he does not belong in trial. He is unruly and destructive, and makes attempts to break out. Because of his disrespectful and dangerous behavior, he is thrown in jail. Your reasoning would look at this situation and say that discrimination is involved, because one is given the freedom to be judged as not guilty while the other does not get that same freedom. But, the fact is that there is no such freedom as "to be judged not guilty". There is only the freedom to be given a fair trial. The problem is that one of these men did not want a free trial, he wanted to be judged not guilty and be let out. The man who was judged not guilty was given that judgment not because it was his right or his freedom, but because he utilized his freedom to a fair trial.
In the same way, there is no "freedom to marry a woman" or "freedom to marry your partner". There is only "freedom to marry one of the opposite gender". It just so happens that not everyone wants that freedom. Furthermore, the people who do marry women or marry partners aren't doing so because it is their right or freedom, they are doing so because they are utilizing their freedom to marry one of the opposite gender. This is in exactly the same way that one can be judged not guilty by using the freedom to a fair trial.
Best wishes,threeofsix
Unlike most atheists, I actually respect Craig as a philosopher, but often on topics such as same-sex marriage, he's not only completely wrong, his arguments are hardly worth consideration.
1. Sexual orientation discrimination
"Correct, restrictions do apply in both cases. However, in the case where the freedom to marry one's partner is considered, the restrictions are discriminatory. If we recognize that we only have the right to marry one of the opposite gender, the restrictions do not pick out any group over another (with the exception of requiring that one be of legal age). Then, marrying your partner is only a result that is allowed by exercising your freedom to marry one of the opposite sex."
When a freedom is restricted, discrimination occurs - restrictions are by definition discriminatory. So I don't see any difference between restrictions on the "freedom to marry one's partner" and restrictions on the "freedom to marry one of the opposite gender." In fact, nothing in your latest response demonstrates that there is no "freedom to marry one's partner." Because heterosexuals are *free* to marry their partners, it follows that they have the *freedom* to marry their partners, which is a freedom denied to homosexuals.
To challenge my claim, you need to show that heterosexuals do not possess the *freedom* to marry their partners even though they are *free* to marry their partners. In other words, you need to demonstrate a distinction between "being free to marry one's partner"and "having the freedom to marry one's partner." I have no idea how anyone could defend this distinction.
"Correct, but two closely related freedoms suggest that they aren't unrelated and distinct, but connected."
But they are distinct: 1) freedom to marry one's partner, and 2) freedom to marry someone who isn't one's partner. Contrary to your claim, (2) doesn't entail the non-existence of (1). It appears you have conceded this point. So what's your argument that (1) doesn't exist?
" As it turns out, we actually have a freedom that encompasses all of the others *and* explains what appeared to be discriminations and individual exceptions. We either have the freedom to marry one of the opposite gender as the fundamental freedom with a few generalized restrictions, or the freedom to marry one's partner and the freedom to marry someone who is not your partner along with a laundry list of caveats and discriminatory exceptions."
The "freedom to marry one of the opposite gender" entails freedoms (1) and (2) above, and freedoms (1) and (2) aren't "discriminatory exceptions" to the more general freedom. I really don't see what you're getting at. If I have the general freedom to walk on public property, then it follows that I have the more specific freedom to walk around my local public park. You still haven't demonstrated how the more general freedom to marry someone of the opposite gender entails the non-existence of the more specific freedoms (1) and (2).
" By Occam's Razor alone, we have to conclude that the former is the more fundamental unless strong evidence is shown to the contrary."
The freedom to marry someone of the opposite gender is more general than freedoms (1) and (2) -- in fact, the more general freedom entails freedoms (1) and (2). But none of this implies that freedoms (1) and (2) don't exist.
"Furthermore, I think that Amish Bill made a good point in saying that the qualification of "partner" does not create an obligation on the government's part to sanction it with marriage. These are more points against the claim that we actually do have the freedom to marry our partners."
No, they aren't. The fact remains that under our marriage laws, heterosexuals have the *freedom* to marry their partners, which follows from the fact that they are *free* to marry their partners (something homosexuals are not free to do). You tried to demonstrate the non-existence of freedom (1) by pointing out that there are restrictions and the existence of freedom (2), but both of your arguments failed.
"Rather, people who do marry their partners are doing so by exercising their freedom to marry one of the opposite gender."
There is no "rather" here. Both the "freedom to marry one's partner" and the "freedom to marry one of the opposite gender" exists -- the latter is simply more general than the former.
"I agree that we have to distinguish between what the law says and what the law does."
But so far, you have been putting all the focus on what the law says. If you agree, then you should consider whether our marriage laws treats different groups differently. Are homosexuals treated differently than heterosexuals? If our laws permit heterosexuals to do something that homosexuals are forbidden to do, then the answer is 'yes.' Heterosexuals are permitted to marry their partners but homosexuals are forbidden to marry theirs, so the answer is 'yes.'
2. Gender discrimination
"For instance, consider a rule in some kids' game "the youngest goes first". In one group of kids, perhaps Tommy goes first. In another, Jenna would go first. But, we don't have one rule that says "Tommy goes first" and another that says "Jenna goes first"."
This supports what I said above about the general freedom entailing the existence of more specific freedoms (1) and (2). The general rule "the youngest goes first" entails the existence of the more specific rule "Tommy goes first."
"Just because a woman is not allowed to marry a woman and a man is does not mean that the man has a freedom a woman does not."
Yes, it does. From the fact that men are permitted to marry women but women are not permitted to marry women, it follows that men are *free* to do something that women are not - that is, they are *free* to marry women. From the fact that men are *free* to marry women but women are not *free* to marry men, it follows that men possess a *freedom* that women do not have - that is, the *freedom* to marry women.
To you resist the last inference, you need to maintain a distinction between "being free to marry women" and "having the freedom to marry women," but this is impossible: "having the freedom to marry women" simply means "being free to marry women."
Like I said, you are not considering what the law actually does. Here, the law treats men and women differently because men are permitted to do something that women are not permitted to do (and vice versa). Do you deny that men are permitted to do something that women are not permitted to do?
" This is for the same reason that gravity on the moon isn't less than that of earth's because the physical laws are different. Rather, they are different because the same law or freedom can produce different results."
This doesn't interact with what I wrote at all, and I'm struggling to understand how your example is even remotely applicable to our marriage laws. In your example, the more general law entails different results, but regarding our marriage laws, the more general freedom entails the existence of specific freedoms, and those specific freedoms are granted to one group but not another.
"Actually, you answered this one yourself when you said "The law in my hypothetical makes distinctions on the basis of race"."
But in my hypothetical, I explained precisely how the law makes those distinctions - namely, unlike blacks, whites have the freedom to marry whites, and unlike whites, blacks have the freedom to marry blacks. Similarly, our marriage laws makes distinctions on the basis of gender - namely, unlike men, women have the freedom to marry men, and unlike women, men have the freedom to marry women. (A similar thing can be said regarding sexual orientation.) So my hypothetical only serves to reinforce my point.
"d. What exactly is it that makes one freedom more fundamental than the other? I've stated a few times that when people who are partners get married, they aren't exercising their right to get married, they are exercising their freedom to marry one of the opposite gender. "
When couples get married, they ARE exercising their right to get married. The fact that they may be exercising a more general freedom (which you call "fundamental") doesn't mean they aren't exercising a specific freedom entailed by the more general freedom.
"e. I have shown how our law treats different groups differently.Not so. You have shown how the law produces different results in different groups, but different results does not imply different treatment. "
More specifically, I have shown how the law permits one group the freedom to do something that it forbids another group from doing. Different freedoms for different groups = different treatment.
"The physical laws are relevant only as analogies."
Right, and you have yet to show how they are analogous. Physical laws describe and explain physical behavior; society laws govern what people can or cannot do. When a law allows one group of people to do something that another group is not allowed to do, it makes a distinction between different groups, and that distinction is called discrimination.
"A law is discriminatory when it treats two different situations differently. But, as my examples show, just because two different results occur doesn't mean that the law treats them differently. In our case, both homosexuals and heterosexuals are allowed to marry one of the opposite gender."
The fact that the law treats homosexuals and heterosexuals the same in one respect doesn't mean they aren't being treated differently. Again, the more general freedom of being allowed to marry someone of the opposite gender entails more specific freedoms, and those specific freedoms are granted to heterosexuals but denied to homosexuals.
"But, homosexuals don't want that freedom. They want the freedom to marry one of the same gender--an entirely new freedom."
But it's not entirely new at all. The freedom to marry someone of the same gender entails the more specific freedom to marry one's partner, which is a freedom that heterosexuals currently possess. Other specific freedoms include: (a) the freedom to marry men (which women currently possess) and (b) the freedom to marry women (which men currently possess).
The fact of discrimination is undeniable, and the only pertinent question is whether it is justified.
Spencer
Your objections come down to this:
1. Sexual Orientation Discrimination
a) Restrictions apply in both cases.Correct, restrictions do apply in both cases. However, in the case where the freedom to marry one's partner is considered, the restrictions are discriminatory. If we recognize that we only have the right to marry one of the opposite gender, the restrictions do not pick out any group over another (with the exception of requiring that one be of legal age). Then, marrying your partner is only a result that is allowed by exercising your freedom to marry one of the opposite sex.
b) The existence of one freedom does not suggest the non-existence of another freedom.Correct, but two closely related freedoms suggest that they aren't unrelated and distinct, but connected. As it turns out, we actually have a freedom that encompasses all of the others *and* explains what appeared to be discriminations and individual exceptions. We either have the freedom to marry one of the opposite gender as the fundamental freedom with a few generalized restrictions, or the freedom to marry one's partner and the freedom to marry someone who is not your partner along with a laundry list of caveats and discriminatory exceptions. By Occam's Razor alone, we have to conclude that the former is the more fundamental unless strong evidence is shown to the contrary. Furthermore, I think that Amish Bill made a good point in saying that the qualification of "partner" does not create an obligation on the government's part to sanction it with marriage. These are more points against the claim that we actually do have the freedom to marry our partners. Rather, people who do marry their partners are doing so by exercising their freedom to marry one of the opposite gender.
c) We must distinguish between what the law says and what the law does. "...generally, are heterosexuals free to marry their partners? A 'yes' answer (which is obvious) supports my claim that heterosexuals generally have the freedom to marry their partners, which is not a freedom that homosexuals generally have."I agree that we have to distinguish between what the law says and what the law does. This is actually just about the same thing as my point about "special cases". If the law does two separate things, that doesn't mean that it has two separate rules to pick out the two cases. Rather, it does the two separate things because the different situations respond to the same thing differently.
2. Gender Discrimination
a. Explain "special case"http://lmgtfy.com/?q=special+c...
Consider a rule, which when applied to one situation produces one result and when applied to a second situation produces a second (different) result. Each of the results are called special cases. For instance, consider a rule in some kids' game "the youngest goes first". In one group of kids, perhaps Tommy goes first. In another, Jenna would go first. But, we don't have one rule that says "Tommy goes first" and another that says "Jenna goes first". It is an unsupported simplification to consider the two results to be two distinct rules. Rather, they are merely the result of the same rule applied to different situations.
b. All genders do not have the same freedom.My physics examples and final statement in this message respond to this. Just because a woman is not allowed to marry a woman and a man is does not mean that the man has a freedom a woman does not. This is for the same reason that gravity on the moon isn't less than that of earth's because the physical laws are different. Rather, they are different because the same law or freedom can produce different results.
c. How does the hypothetical situation of marrying only within race violate "the freedom to marry one of the opposite gender (where no racial qualifiers are extended)"?Actually, you answered this one yourself when you said "The law in my hypothetical makes distinctions on the basis of race". The freedom to marry one of the opposite gender with no racial restrictions is in direct opposition to a different ruling which makes a racial restrictions.
d. What exactly is it that makes one freedom more fundamental than the other?I've stated a few times that when people who are partners get married, they aren't exercising their right to get married, they are exercising their freedom to marry one of the opposite gender. What makes that freedom more fundamental is that it explains the process without requiring additional exceptions that pick out some groups over other groups. As stated before, yes there are restrictions, but the restrictions are such that they are group-independent.
e. I have shown how our law treats different groups differently.Not so. You have shown how the law produces different results in different groups, but different results does not imply different treatment. See my physics examples, the following statement, and my description of special cases to understand why.
f. I do not see how physical laws are relevant.The physical laws are relevant only as analogies. I used them to help describe the relationship between a rule and the different results that can occur because the situations respond to the same rule differently. They help to describe how even though different results occur, it isn't because the law is changing and treating the situations differently. Rather, it is because the two situations respond to the same law differently. This way, I am showing that a law isn't discriminatory to one situation over the other just because the results are different.
A law is discriminatory when it treats two different situations differently. But, as my examples show, just because two different results occur doesn't mean that the law treats them differently. In our case, both homosexuals and heterosexuals are allowed to marry one of the opposite gender. The same freedom is given to both. But, homosexuals don't want that freedom. They want the freedom to marry one of the same gender--an entirely new freedom.
The issue is really about free speech. Does a private company have the right to vioce it's opinion on a political issue?
The secondary issue would be does a state have a right to dicriminate against a company because they don't like it's political views?
The left really took off it's mask and revealed it's fascistic nature with this issue. They wanted to boycott a company for expressing a political opinion. Just because they disagree with Chick-A they want to kick them out of the state. They do this type of thing frequently. They target advertisers of conservative radio hosts and attempt get them thrown off the air.If you disagree with them that redefining marriage is a right or you don't believe that gay people are being discriminated against, you are automatically a bigot.
People are tried of this, so they supported Chick-Fil-A by giving them their business. What was the response? Spray painting graffiti on Chick-Fil-A's buildings. There was even a group of gay men harassing a homeless man who was reading the bible outside Chick-Fil-A.
This group's mantra is tolerance but they can't tolerate someone with a different opinion? For simply expressing the opinion that marriage should be between one man and one woman they spray paint HATE on the side of the building? Expressing an opinion that is different from theirs equates to hate but what would you call spray painting a private companies building? I would say that is hateful. Hate is wrong but they hate anyone with a different opinion? These people are fascists and the silent majority is waking up.
"This misconstrues the burden."
If you want to change the definition of marriage that has been the same since this country was founded, that is your burden.If you want to assert that SSM is a constitutional right that is your burden too.
"Because our current marriage laws discriminate against same-sex couples,"
You are simply assuming that.
" in order for those laws to comport with the requirement of "equality under the law," that discrimination must be justified."
There is no justified discrimination clause found any where in the constitution. If the requirement of "equality under the law" applies to SSM, it must apply to polygamists too. "Other types of marriages are not currently under discussion, and those marriages should be evaluated on their own terms"
You are dodging the issue. If the criteria of discrimination is not being allowed to marry your partner, your own argument with EPC dictates if anyone is being denied the right to marry their partners, they are being discriminated against too and should get the exact same outcome that SS couples receive.
"This is hypocritical reasoning at its finest: same-sex couples shouldn't be allowed to marry because they can't procreate, but when opposite-sex couples can't procreate either, that isn't a problem for them"What would happen to the world population if everyone in the world turned gay?When a couple can't procreate is that normal or would that be classified as a genetic disorder?
"What our marriage laws do is allow heterosexuals to marry their partners, but it does not allow homosexuals to marry theirs."And?"You state that discrimination occurs as a matter of fact and that it can't be argued against, that you have already shown it to be true. What I am suggesting is that you have not done so, but have only demonstrated a misunderstanding of the freedoms at play."You have not explained why it is discriminatory. You are just assuming that it is."Consider a law that only allows marriages between persons of the same race"You cannot compair laws that only allow marriages between persons of the same race and SSM. You are compairing apples to oranges.
"given that our marriage laws treats different groups differently."A right applies to everyone not to groups
"Actually, the government IS discriminating on the basis of gender (as well as sexual orientation)."You are just assuming that the government is discriminating.
Except they aren't: unlike heterosexuals, polygamists aren't free to marry their partners either.
"Hence the question arises: why aren't homosexuals granted that same freedom?"
Hence the question arises, why aren't polygamists granted that same freedom?
"Consider when states used to ban interracial marriage, where legal marriage was defined more along of the lines of "one man and one woman of the same race." "
You are making a category error. The definition of marriage is one man and one woman. Any man has the right to marry any woman he wants. Interracial marriage laws violates the equal protection clause because you can't tell a man that he can't marry any woman he wants. Same sex marriage redefines marriage. You are comparing apples and oranges.
1. Sexual orientation discrimination.
" So, it is simply false to say that our freedom as Americans is to marry our partners for two reasons: 1) You may not always marry your partner and 2) you may marry someone who is not your partner."
Neither of these facts show that there is no "freedom to marry one's partner." Regarding (1), the fact that the "freedom to marry one's partner" has certain restrictions doesn't mean there is no such freedom; in most scenarios, heterosexuals are free to marry their partners. The same point can be made about the "freedom to marry one of the opposite gender." Contrary to your claim, it is simply not true that "everyone" has this freedom, or that one can "always" marry someone of the opposite gender -- restrictions apply. Does it follow from this that there is no such freedom? Of course not. (If your (1) were a good objection against "freedom to marry one's partner," it would also be a good objection against the "freedom to marry someone of the opposite gender).
Regarding (2), it's true that a person can marry someone who isn't his or her partner, but the existence of that freedom - the freedom to marry someone who is NOT your partner - does not entail the non-existence of the other freedom - the freedom to marry one's partner. You're simply pointing out the existence of a different freedom, which does not in anyway suggest the non-existence of the freedom at issue.
"You may think that this freedom results in discrimination because "homosexuals are not free to marry their partners", but once again the law has never said that anyone has that freedom."
This goes back to my point about your failure to distinguish between what the law says and what the law does. Sure, the law doesn't explicitly say that heterosexuals have the freedom to marry their partners, but it doesn't follow from this that the law doesn't grant this freedom. Just ask yourself: generally, are heterosexuals free to marry their partners? A 'yes' answer (which is obvious) supports my claim that heterosexuals generally have the freedom to marry their partners, which is not a freedom that homosexuals generally have.
2. Sex discrimination
"If you want to continue using this argument, you must first show that splitting this freedom into special cases is actually more fundamental than the general statement."
First, I don't understand what you mean by "special case" - as it applies to what I said about sex discrimination. Second, again, you fail to distinguish between what the law says and what the law does. Laws can be discriminatory not only in its explicit language, but in its effects - i.e., how they actually treat people. Our marriage laws treats men differently from women and women differently from men, which is the very understanding of discrimination that you agreed with.
"When you recognize that the fundamental freedom at play is marrying one of the opposite gender, you will recognize that all genders have that exact same freedom."
But as a matter of logic, all genders do not have the same freedom: men are treated differently than women and women are treated differently then men. Are men free to marry women? Yes. Are women free to marry women? No. Hence, it follows that men possess a freedom that women do not possess - namely, the freedom to marry women. Are women free to marry men? Yes. Are men free to marry men? No. Hence, it follows that women possess a freedom that men do not possess - namely, the freedom to marry men.
And again, the fact that some restrictions apply to the above freedoms doesn't mean they don't exist.
"Discrimination is when you pick out one race or other group and treat them differently than the rest. In this example *everybody* is allowed to marry within their race, and hence everybody is given the same freedom."
While it's true that everyone is given the same freedom to marry within their race, it doesn't follow that everyone is given the same freedom. In my hypothetical, whites have different freedoms than blacks - namely, the freedom to marry other whites. Hence, it follows that the law treats whites differently than blacks (and vice versa).
" Of course, I would disagree with such a law because it violates the freedom to marry one of the opposite gender (where no racial qualifiers are extended)."
Does it? How? The law in my hypothetical makes distinctions on the basis of race, not gender.
Again, I don't know what you mean by "special case." And I don't see why "freedom to marry one of the opposite gender" is more "fundamental" than "freedom to marry one's partner" or "freedom to marry men/women."
"In all your arguments, you use a play on words to trick yourself into thinking that a special case is the fundamental statement."
There is no trick at all -- I demonstrated how the law treats different groups differently. Not only have I identified the different groups (heterosexuals v. homosexuals/ men v. women), I showed how our laws treats them differently.
" Are there two different physical laws at play here? No - it is the same laws of electrodynamics, only applied to two different special cases. The result is different, but not because the law is treating the two scenarios differently, but rather it is because the scenarios are responding to the laws differently."
I have no idea how the laws of physics are relevant in any way to the laws of society. A law is discriminatory when it treats different groups differently, and regarding our current marriage laws, different groups *are* being treated differently. This fact is undeniable. The question now becomes whether the discrimination is justified.
Spencer I'm going to consolidate your points and respond to them individually.
1. Since heterosexuals are allowed to marry their partners, but homosexuals aren't, the law discriminates against homosexuals.
What I've stated is that there is no such "freedom to marry your partner". You responded by saying simply that we do. The fact is, though, we don't. We simply aren't free to marry anyone we consider to be our partner. Sure, a man and woman in love may be free to marry each other, but something being allowed isn't the same as a freedom or right. Someone isn't free to marry an eight-year-old. People aren't free to marry their dogs or bacon. Also, you are free to marry someone who is not your partner and someone who you don't love. Several cultures in the U.S. and around the world do such things. You may even marry and then live on opposite sides of the country. So, it is simply false to say that our freedom as Americans is to marry our partners for two reasons: 1) You may not always marry your partner and 2) you may marry someone who is not your partner. If you did think that our freedom was to marry our partner, you might say we have discrimination against age, species, sentience, and a plethora of other exceptions, but that is under the false assumption that our freedom is indeed to marry our partner.
On the other hand, we can certainly say that everyone has the freedom to marry one of the opposite gender. This freedom is open to people of all races, genders, and sexual orientations (whether or not they actually want that freedom). You may think that this freedom results in discrimination because "homosexuals are not free to marry their partners", but once again the law has never said that anyone has that freedom. Why should homosexuals get it? The freedom we have is to marry one of the opposite gender, and it just so happens that most of those that take advantage of that freedom are partners.
Since the people getting married are usually partners, confusion results whereby you might conclude that some may marry their partners but others are discriminated against. But rather, some partners can get married only because anyone can get married to someone of the opposite gender. Other partners can't get married simply because there is no freedom that says they should be able to.
If you want to continue using this argument, you must first show that 1) the freedom to marry one of the opposite gender is not the fundamental freedom at play here, and second show that 2) the freedom to marry your partner is the fundamental freedom at play here.
2. Men may marry women, but women are not also allowed to marry women and thereby do not have the same freedoms as a man (and the same in reverse). Therefore the law discriminates against gender.
I've argued against this by saying that this is an unjustified splitting of one fundamental freedom. Just like the splitting of Coulomb's law into four separate laws with different qualifiers is not supported, this isn't either. When you recognize that the fundamental freedom at play is marrying one of the opposite gender, you will recognize that all genders have that exact same freedom.
If you want to continue using this argument, you must first show that splitting this freedom into special cases is actually more fundamental than the general statement. This I expect to be difficult because universal laws are true universally, but special cases are true only within their special case (hence the suggestive naming).
Lastly, I'd like to respond to your example where I am asked to suppose that we are given the freedom only to marry one within our own race. You suggested that this would be discriminatory based on race for the same reasons I reiterated above. However, this is *not* discrimination. Discrimination is when you pick out one race or other group and treat them differently than the rest. In this example *everybody* is allowed to marry within their race, and hence everybody is given the same freedom. Of course, I would disagree with such a law because it violates the freedom to marry one of the opposite gender (where no racial qualifiers are extended). But, I would not disagree with it on grounds of discrimination, because such grounds do not exist. Your argument fails for the same reason I gave for #2 and you can only continue to use this argument if you show what I asked you to show for #2.
Ultimately, I think your errors come down to this: that you do not understand the concept of a special case and its relationship to a general statement or fundamental ruling. In all your arguments, you use a play on words to trick yourself into thinking that a special case is the fundamental statement.
For another example, I'll use some optics. You may be familiar with total internal reflection. This effect occurs when light passes from a material with a higher index of refraction to a material with a lower index of refraction, and only occurs for a specific range of angles. On the other hand, this effect doesn't occur if you go from low index of refraction to low. Are there two different physical laws at play here? No - it is the same laws of electrodynamics, only applied to two different special cases. The result is different, but not because the law is treating the two scenarios differently, but rather it is because the scenarios are responding to the laws differently.
Similarly, if you drop a ball on earth, it will fall at 9.8 m/s^2. On mars, you get a different acceleration. Are these two different physical laws? No - merely the same law in two different scenarios. The law isn't treating the ball differently, the ball is responding differently to the exact same law.
As someone who is relatively new tothis site, I want to say I’ve already been blessed by many of the writings onit, especially the transcripts of some of Dr. Craig's public debates. Theinformation on this site has already helped me articulate a greater defense formy beliefs and I expect that it will continue to do so in the future.
With that having been said, I am saddened to share that when listening to thissound clip I found some of Dr. Craig’s statements regarding equal legal statusfor homosexuals to marry to be somewhat lacking.
While there is some truth in what he says, I think that to some extent he hasmissed, or perhaps merely omitted some critical points which are needed inorder to address why many homosexuals perceive the law to unfairly and specificallydiscriminate against them in their desire to marry their chosen partner.
To explain what I mean by this, please consider the following:
The fact that the law commonlyprohibits the legal marriage of those involved in a wide variety ofrelationships other than same sex romances does not mean in and of itself thatthe law treats same sex relationships exactly the same as it does otherrelationships which can’t be legally be called marriage.
Neither does the fact that homosexuals have legal permission to marry someoneof the opposite sex in and if itself constitute a status of legal equalityregarding marriage. Frankly I find such a claim to be a bit absurd in light ofits context, as a crucial point of the discussion is the legitimacy or lackthereof in the claims made by homosexuals that they are being specifically andinvalidly discriminated against in their desire to marry someone of the SAME sex.
I would argue that for the law as is to truly show equality, it must prohibitsame sex marriage on the same or at least very similar grounds that it wouldprohibit pedophilic marriage, polygamy, or any other relationship which is notpermitted to become a legal marriage.
It must also permit heterosexual marriage based on criterion which cannot bemet by homosexual relationships, criterion that due to the complexity of theissues involved, are much more in depth than just the immediate potential forprocreation.
Many homosexuals argue that this is exactly what isn’t happening. They arguethat they are being specifically discriminated against in a way that isdifferent from the discrimination that other legally invalid romantic and/orsexual relationships are subjected to. They also argue that heterosexualmarriages are validated according to criterion which they claim to be capableof meeting.
Not addressing the nuances in these claims is where a lot ofpeople have dropped the ball in the public debate on same sex marriage. It isexceedingly frustrating to see one conversation after another on this subject failto acknowledge and address the complexity of the arguments on both sides of theissue. Sadly, appears that something similar has happened with this sound clipas well with some of the resulting comments on this site.
Dr. Craig if you read this comment can you please correct me if I am wrong inthinking that you claim homosexuals are not being specifically and unfairlydiscriminated against when the law does not permit same sex marriage.
If this is your position, can you also provide an answer to whether or not thereasons behind your claims are articulated to your satisfaction in this soundclip, and why or why not?
I say these things not because I accept the claims that homosexuals are beingdenied their desires for invalid reasons or even specifically discriminatedagainst, but because the arguments you have raised against such claims in thissound clip seem to fall strangely short of the standard that I have seen you setin other writings and discussions.
"I guess what I'm trying to understand is why the qualification of "partner" creates an obligation by government to sanction it with marriage."
Let's start with an undeniable, empirical observation: heterosexuals are generally free under the law to marry their partners. Hence the question arises: why aren't homosexuals granted that same freedom? Our marriage laws treats heterosexuals and homosexuals differently in this respect, and that distinction needs to be justified.
"As to your second challenge regarding gender discrimination, I fail to see how this qualifies as such."
Under our current marriage laws, men are permitted to marry women but women are not permitted to marry women. Hence, men possess a freedom that women do not possess - namely, the freedom to marry women.
Moreover, under our current marriage laws, women are permitted to marry men but men are not permitted to marry men. Hence, women possess a freedom that men do not possess - namely, the freedom to marry men.
"There would be discrimination, if that was what the laws were stating."
You fail to distinguish between what the law explicitly says and what the law does. What our marriage laws do is allow heterosexuals to marry their partners, but it does not allow homosexuals to marry theirs. Furthermore, our marriage laws allow men to marry women and women to marry men, but not vice versa. Hence, our laws "treats" groups differently, which is part of the meaning of discrimination.
"But we don't have the freedom to "marry our partner" or "marry whomever we love".
But we do. The fact that the law doesn't explicitly say we have that freedom doesn't mean the law doesn't grant it. Again, you fail to distinguish between what the law the law explicitly says and what the law does.
"Since there is no mention of hetero- or homosexuals in this freedom, it isn't discriminatory (remember that to be discriminatory, it must pick a particular group out)."
Failure to mention the words "heterosexuals" and "homosexuals" doesn't mean the law isn't implicitly designed to make distinctions between the two groups, or that it doesn't have the effect of making such distinctions.
Consider a law that only allows marriages between persons of the same race. Such a law, one might say, treats all races equally, because all races are equally prohibited from marrying outside of their race. Does it follow that the law doesn't discriminate on the basis of race? No, it doesn't follow. Under this law, a white person is free to marry another white person, but a black person isn't granted that same freedom - hence there's discrimination on the basis of race.
"The same can be said of gender discrimination because, again, no mention of one gender is singled out in that statement."
Like I said above, you fail to distinguish between what the law explicitly says and what the law does.
"But, I'll say again the freedom isn't that women may marry men."
But it is - the fact that our marriage laws don't explicitly say that doesn't mean our laws don't grant that freedom. Under our laws, women ARE free to marry men, and men ARE free to marry women.
"Craig is showing us that pro-same-sex-marriage arguments aren't actually asking for discrimination to stop, they are asking for a new freedom: the freedom to marry someone of the same gender."
The freedom to marry someone of the same gender is new only in a narrow sense, but that doesn't mean our current marriage laws aren't discriminatory. That freedom entails the freedom for homosexuals to marry their partners (currently granted to heterosexuals), for men to marry men (currently granted to women), and for women to marry women (currently granted to men).
I guess what I'm trying to understand is why the qualification of "partner" creates an obligation by government to sanction it with marriage. So you are saying (if I understand you correctly) that anyone who is romantically involved creates a partnership and is being discriminated against if they are not allowed to legally marry. Is that correct?
As to your second challenge regarding gender discrimination, I fail to see how this qualifies as such. The grounding has nothing to do with gender, though you are creating an inequality by splitting hairs. I believe this has been adressed below by @threeofsix and I don't think there will be any meaningful dialogue by going down that road further.
Spencer I agree that your definition of discrimination is when the law or government singles out one particular group of people and treats them differently from another.
Here is where the problem lies: you say that there is discrimination simply because heterosexuals are allowed to marry their partners while homosexuals are not. There would be discrimination, if that was what the laws were stating. But we don't have the freedom to "marry our partner" or "marry whomever we love". Our freedom is to "marry one of the opposite gender". That freedom is open to people of all sexual orientations. Since there is no mention of hetero- or homosexuals in this freedom, it isn't discriminatory (remember that to be discriminatory, it must pick a particular group out). The same can be said of gender discrimination because, again, no mention of one gender is singled out in that statement. Again, you say men aren't allowed to marry men as women are allowed to marry men, etc. But, I'll say again the freedom isn't that women may marry men. The freedom is for anyone to marry one of the opposite gender. No singling out of gender is done.
You state that discrimination occurs as a matter of fact and that it can't be argued against, that you have already shown it to be true. What I am suggesting is that you have not done so, but have only demonstrated a misunderstanding of the freedoms at play.
What Craig has argued in this video is that gays are guilty of a little word-play in their argument. That by changing the freedom from "you may marry one of the opposite gender" to "men marry women, women don't marry women, etc." some slight of hand is going on that allows them to cry discrimination. No such discrimination exists in the first statement. Instead, Craig is showing us that pro-same-sex-marriage arguments aren't actually asking for discrimination to stop, they are asking for a new freedom: the freedom to marry someone of the same gender.
"The point I am making is this: In physics terms, special cases of laws are not laws themselves. Likewise, we have to recognize that special cases of rights are not also rights."
I don't follow. The issue is whether the law discriminates - i.e., treats one group differently from another. If it does, then discrimination is established.
" Everyone is always free to marry someone of the opposite gender. I'll say again: no group is picked out and treated specially."
That simply isn't the case, as I've demonstrated. What you're not seeing is that the freedom to "marry someone of the opposite gender" is the *only* kind of marriage freedom most states allow, and it is that restriction that creates discrimination.
"If, instead of stating that freedom, you break it down into multiple cases (men marry women, women marry men, men don't marry men, women don't marry women), of course you can produce an illusion of discrimination."
The discrimination isn't an illusion at all. From the fact that (in most states) the freedom to marry is *restricted* to opposite-sex couples, it follows that (a) there's sexual orientation discrimination (because unlike homosexuals, heterosexuals are allowed to marry their partners) and (b) there's gender discrimination (because unlike men, women are not allowed to marry women, and because unlike women, men are not allowed to marry men).
Perhaps you can *defend* discrimination here (some are perfectly justifiable), but the *fact* of discrimination isn't even an open question. It cannot be reasonably disputed that our marriage laws discriminates by allowing some people to marry but not others.
Spencer The point I am making is this: In physics terms, special cases of laws are not laws themselves. Likewise, we have to recognize that special cases of rights are not also rights.
If everyone has the freedom to "marry someone of the opposite gender", we can say that this freedom is blind to sexual orientation or gender. That is, no particular group is picked out and treated differently. Everyone is always free to marry someone of the opposite gender. I'll say again: no group is picked out and treated specially.
If, instead of stating that freedom, you break it down into multiple cases (men marry women, women marry men, men don't marry men, women don't marry women), of course you can produce an illusion of discrimination. The error in this is that you make the freedom out to be something it isn't, and thereby trick yourself into thinking the freedom is something it isn't.
"The freedom isn't simply to marry a man or marry a woman. It is more general than that. You are allowed to marry anyone of the opposite gender. That statement applies to everyone regardless of their sexual orientation."
I don't see how this "freedom" implies that there aren't the two kinds of discrimination I described, given that our marriage laws treats different groups differently. Heterosexuals do not have the same rights as homosexuals, and men do not have the same rights as women (and vice versa).
The fact of discrimination is obvious, so the real question is whether such discrimination is justified.
You break down the law too far. Let me give an example to further describe the point.
For electrical charges, we see that protons and electrons attract, whereas electrons repel electrons (and protons repel protons). Now, there aren't multiple physical laws at play here. We don't have a law that says + charges attract - charges, and another law that says - charges attract + charges, and another law that says - charges repel - charges, and yet another law that says + charges repel + charges. What we have is a single physical law, Coulomb's Law, that acts on all charges.
Likewise, we don't have a law saying men marry women, another saying women marry men, another saying men don't marry men, and yet another saying women don't marry women. We have a single statement: that you are allowed to marry anyone of the opposite gender. The freedom isn't simply to marry a man or marry a woman. It is more general than that. You are allowed to marry anyone of the opposite gender. That statement applies to everyone regardless of their sexual orientation.
"You are saying this is not the case as heterosexuals have the right to marry their "partners" while homosexuals do not. Could you explain what you mean by the word "partner"? I think that is my sticking point. What makes people partners?"
Can you explain what you find confusing about the term "partner" in this context? It sounds like you're asking me what makes people boyfriends/girlfriends. If Bill says he wants to marry his partner Anne, it's clear that by "partner" he's referring to a person he's romantically involved with.
"I have already shown that from my view all persons have the same legal right to marry."
But you failed to address my sex discrimination argument. Under current law, men are free to marry women but women are not free to marry women - hence there's sex discrimination against women (because women are not allowed to do something that men are allowed to do). Furthermore, women are free to marry men but men are not free to marry men - hence there's sex discrimination against men (because men are not allowed to do something that women are allowed to do). So it's not the case that everyone has the same legal right to marry.
Spencer First of all, thank you for your respectful exchange. It's nice to disagree with someone over this issues, without resorting to name-calling.
You said, "The fact that homosexuals are free to marry persons of the opposite sex doesn't mean they have the "same right as heterosexuals." Unlike heterosexuals, homosexuals do not have the right to marry their partners."
I have already shown that from my view all persons have the same legal right to marry. You are saying this is not the case as heterosexuals have the right to marry their "partners" while homosexuals do not. Could you explain what you mean by the word "partner"? I think that is my sticking point. What makes people partners?
"The fact is, gays can marry (leaving aside the issue of if they would want to)."
The fact that gays are allowed to marry persons are of the opposite-sex doesn't mean they have the right to marry in the relevant sense that matters - i.e., the right to marry one's partner.
"I agree that the terms are used interchangeably, but one better defines the issue."
It is distortion in the extreme (and frankly dishonest) to suggest or imply that support for "gay marriage" means support for the notion that "only gays should be allowed to marry." There is no ambiguity regarding what proponents mean we advocate for "gay marriage."
"Why is this distinction important? Because same-sex marriage advocates say that homosexuals do not have the same rights as heterosexuals. But they do. All men are free to marry women. All women are free to marry men. "
The fact that homosexuals are free to marry persons of the opposite sex doesn't mean they have the "same right as heterosexuals." Unlike heterosexuals, homosexuals do not have the right to marry their partners.
Moreover, under current law, men are free to marry women but women are not free to marry women - hence there's sex discrimination against women (because women are not allowed to do something that men are allowed to do). Further, women are free to marry men but men are not free to marry men - hence there's sex discrimination against men (because men are not allowed to do something that women are allowed to do).
I agree that the terms are used interchangeably, but one better defines the issue. The fact is, gays can marry (leaving aside the issue of if they would want to). A gay man can marry a woman. However, same-sex couples cannot marry. It's important to use the more accurate phrase in framing the issue.
Why is this distinction important? Because same-sex marriage advocates say that homosexuals do not have the same rights as heterosexuals. But they do. All men are free to marry women. All women are free to marry men. This is regardless of race, religion or sexual orientation.
"I think you've misunderstood Craig's argument, his point was that the current law doesn't discriminate against homosexuals because homosexuals can still marry in the heterosexual sense (even if they don't want to)."
Consider when states used to ban interracial marriage, where legal marriage was defined more along of the lines of "one man and one woman of the same race." By Craig's logic, anti-miscegenation laws didn't discriminate on the basis of race because blacks could still marry in the racially purist sense (even if they didn't want to). Obviously, this construes the "right to marry" too narrowly.
The fact that current law allows homosexuals to marry people of the opposite-sex doesn't mean it doesn't discriminate against them (it does).
"He simply meant that it was better to refer to it as same-sex marriage than gay marriage (since not only homosexuals could participate in same-sex marriage but calling it gay marriage makes it sound like heterosexuals are excluded)."
"Gay marriage" and "same-sex marriage" are used interchangeably, and neither term implies in any way the exclusion of heterosexuals from marriage. Support for "gay marriage" has never meant support for marriages only between gay people -- to suggest otherwise is quite disingenuous.
"Do individuals have a right to marry their partners no matter who they are?"
Of course not, but similar restrictions apply in the case of opposite-sex marriage, so I don't see how your observations affect what I say.
Do individuals have a right to marry their partners no matter who they are? It certainly doesn't seem so unless not allowing incestuous couples or partakers in bestial relationships to marry is also discriminatory (which most same-sex advocates would agree should not be allowed to marry).Also consider age barriers, do marriage laws discriminate against paedophiles for not allowing them to marry children (even if they somehow convinced the child and her parents that it was a good idea)?
I think you've misunderstood Craig's argument, his point was that the current law doesn't discriminate against homosexuals because homosexuals can still marry in the heterosexual sense (even if they don't want to). Likewise Same-sex marriage would not discriminate against heterosexuals since heterosexuals could also marry someone of the same gender (even if they don't want to).He simply meant that it was better to refer to it as same-sex marriage than gay marriage (since not only homosexuals could participate in same-sex marriage but calling it gay marriage makes it sound like heterosexuals are excluded).
You're equivocating the ability of gays to get married with gay marriage.
"I don't see the hypocrisy. Sexual intercourse between a man and a woman is intrinsically ordered to the begetting of children,"
Notice the shift in your position. Previously, you claimed that the relevant difference between opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples lies in the fact that the latter are "not able to procreate," but obviously, that inability is true of many opposite-sex couples. So now you've replaced your "inability to procreate" rationale with the "not intrinsically ordered towards to the begetting of children" rationale. What does the latter even mean? In the case of permanently sterile opposite-sex couples, what makes it true that sex between them is "intrinsically ordered to the begetting of children?
"Homosexual intercourse is simply naturally unable to produce children."
Permanently sterile couples are unable to produce children either, though I don't see what's "unnatural" about that inability. Moreover, for purposes of marriage, you apparently see a distinction between "naturally unable to produce children" and "unnaturally unable to produce children" -- only the former is a barrier to marriage. Why is that? What's the significance of this distinction? Again, I note how far we've moved away from your original "inability to procreate" rationale.
"Now, if you wish to change the law to redefine marriage, you have the burden of proof to show that the privileges granted to married couples should also be granted to homosexual couples. Arguments along the lines of "why not?" do not constitute a positive case. "
This misconstrues the burden. Because our current marriage laws discriminate against same-sex couples, in order for those laws to comport with the requirement of "equality under the law," that discrimination must be justified. We can't simply assume that the law is justified by default - some reason needs to be offered. As you appear to have tacitly conceded, your original justification fails.
"Make your case and state why your redefined definition discriminates against other types of relationships (polygamous, incestuous or otherwise), which under the new law shall not be granted the same privileges as "married" people."
Other types of marriages are not currently under discussion, and those marriages should be evaluated on their own terms. However, consistent with what I said above, the burden is on the discriminator to justify the exclusion of other marriages. If there isn't a good reason to prohibit polygamy, then polygamy shouldn't be prohibited, but whether there is such a reason has nothing to do with whether there is a good reason to prohibit SSM.
I don't see the hypocrisy. Sexual intercourse between a man and a woman is intrinsically ordered to the begetting of children, even if certain accidental defects found in either one prevent the act from culminating in conception. Homosexual intercourse is simply naturally unable to produce children. Hence, society has an interest in promoting marriage, which is a stable relationship between a man and a woman with a sexual component to it, within which children would be brought into this world and raised. Homosexual couples by definition cannot marry each other.
Now, if you wish to change the law to redefine marriage, you have the burden of proof to show that the privileges granted to married couples should also be granted to homosexual couples. Arguments along the lines of "why not?" do not constitute a positive case. Make your case and state why your redefined definition discriminates against other types of relationships (polygamous, incestuous or otherwise), which under the new law shall not be granted the same privileges as "married" people.
Actually, the government IS discriminating on the basis of gender (as well as sexual orientation).
Sexual orientation discrimination: unlike heterosexual, homosexuals are not free to marry their partners.
Gender discrimination: men are free to marry women but that freedom -- to marry a woman -- isn't a freedom women have. Moreover, women are free to marry men but that freedom -- to marry a man -- isn't a freedom that men have.
Except they aren't: unlike heterosexuals, homosexuals aren't free to marry their partners. The fact that homosexuals are free to marry persons of the opposite-sex doesn't mean they are free to marry in the relevant sense.
" The law treats everyone equally."
False - it does not. Despite what WLC says, it's simply not the case that our marriage laws treats gays and straights equally. Unlike heterosexuals, homosexuals are unable to marry their partners, and thus this differential treatment needs to be justified.
" Everyone can marry a person of the opposite sex-- that's abehavior. If you don't want to engage in that behavior, that's fine. But don'tsay the law doesn't treat you equally because it does."
All discrimination can be reduced to the level of "behavior," so your distinction is one without a difference. Anti-miscegenation laws discriminated against behavior too
" It is true that the exclusive right of heterosexual couples to marry discriminates against homosexual couples, but for good reason, since homosexuals are not able to procreate and that the mere existence of a sexual component in a relationship does not warrant state support and promotion of that relationship."
This is hypocritical reasoning at its finest: same-sex couples shouldn't be allowed to marry because they can't procreate, but when opposite-sex couples can't procreate either, that isn't a problem for them. What's the difference between [b]same-sex couples[/b] and [b]opposite-sex couples who can't procreate[/b] that would justify prohibiting the former from being allowed to marry? I have yet to see a defensible answer to this question.
What's your point? I agree with your previous statement as well. The fact that *some* discrimination is good for society doesn't mean *all* of it is. That doesn't mean that this discrimination is good for society.
No, I'm afraid not. Would you mind rephrasing that?
Only government officials can make law. They can make any law they want (as long as the law is not illegal, given a previous law). Any law they want, because we are a Republic! We get to use our Democracy by not voting in such people as would make up laws that we don't like. People who run companies can say what they want, because they are not law officials, and their policies are not the law. Does this make sense in this context?
Why can't the law just say that two heterosexual people can get a marriage license if they want? What's unconstitutional about that? That doesn't leave out or refer to any specific group of people.
BTW, I'm a Christian who supports traditional marriage, I just feel this avoids Craig's charge about same-sex marriage being unconstitutional because it only refers to homosexuals.
Further, if it's unconstitutional for same-sex marriage to be regulated by the state because it excludes heterosexual people, then wouldn't this logically mean the state being involved in traditional marriage excludes homosexuals?
I agree 100%. So what's the problem? We discriminate against what restrooms a man and woman can use in public. Men can't use a woman's restroom and vice versa. Everyone is discriminated against. Some "discrimination" (your term) is good for society.
*No one* (not just gays) is free to marry someone of the same gender, and so this is not special treatment for gays, but a discrimination which applies to everyone.
Also, as Dr. Craig points out, there is no ban on gay marriage. Gays are free to marry just as anyone else.
Clifton, your statement that the government is discriminating based on gender does not follow. How would not allowing so-called same sex marriage be a gender issue. You could say it's an issue of sexual orientation, but what does gender have to do with it?
In your counter-example, "young folk" aren't being discriminated against; senior citizens are being protected. There is a difference between implenting policies for citizens with disabilities and other special needs and citizens in general.
If you're argument is that the government should treat all people equally, regardless of their attributes, then do say why public pensions should only go to those over the retirement age? That would after all be discriminating against all us young folk. Public policy must necessarily distinguish between different types of people in order to be effective. Race is, of course, rarely a good reason to discriminate, though some would argue that affirmative action would be one such case.
It could also be argued that, just as interracial marriage discriminated against persons according to race, and the government must be blind to race, banning gay marriage discriminates according to gender, and the government must be blind to that as well.
The assertion that homosexuals are being discriminated against conflates feelings and behavior. It falsely asserts that people who have homosexual FEELINGS are being discriminated against by those who believe that heterosexual BEHAVIOR is the only sexual BEHAVIOR that should be PROMOTED by the government. (This is not about tolerance-- homosexual BEHAVIOR is already PERMITTED in our country.) The same logic used in this post could be used to claim discrimination for any sexual behavior. Are supporters of SSM discriminating against polygamists or the incestuous because they don't PROMOTE polygamy or incestuous marriage? No. The law treats everyone equally. PEOPLE are not being discriminated against, BEHAVIORS are. Marriage laws discriminate for or against BEHAVIORS not people, and that's what all laws do.
In other words, there's a difference between tolerating people and promotingtheir behavior. The intolerant left conflates the two. They think that thosewho do not promote same sex marriage discriminate against people. That'snonsense. Marriage laws treat everyone equally by rightfully discriminatingagainst behavior. Everyone can marry a person of the opposite sex-- that's abehavior. If you don't want to engage in that behavior, that's fine. But don'tsay the law doesn't treat you equally because it does.
The problem is that discrimination is not per se a bad thing. For example, employers will often discriminate against the less intelligent job seekers and film directors will discriminate against those who just don't act very well, and so on. The question is whether the attribute underlying the discrimination is a warranted basis for the discrimination. In the case of marriage, man has decided that marriage, that is, a life-long commitment of a man and a woman to each other, is a necessary foundation for the rearing of a healthy children and it is hence in the interest of society to support and promote this contract. It is true that the exclusive right of heterosexual couples to marry discriminates against homosexual couples, but for good reason, since homosexuals are not able to procreate and that the mere existence of a sexual component in a relationship does not warrant state support and promotion of that relationship. Even if the definition of marriage were expanded to include homosexuals, this would also discriminate against polygamists and couples or groups of people who don't even have a sexual component to the their relationship. You would have to make a positive case as to why such people should be discriminated against and shouldn't receive the government benefits and support that married people receive.Personally, I think people should be free to enter into any relationship they want and if homosexuals want to "get married" at some liberal protestant church, I think they should have the freedom to do that. But government recognition of marriage should be directed exclusively to heterosexual marriage and merely claiming "discrimination" is not going to convince me otherwise.
I still have trouble here. I agree that nobody has the right to discriminate by, say, not allowing a business to open in a city. But aren't you still discriminating against homosexuals by not allowing them to marry their partners? I realize that you have your reasons for personally rejecting the idea, but to promote your opinions as policy and legally force them on others seems like discrimination against people to me.
Receive our free Newsletter
Get Dr. Craig's newsletter and keep up with RF news and events.
Children
New! Apologetics Resources for Your Children from Dr. Craig Find out more →
TV Show
Dr. Craig’s new TV series Reasonable Faith begins Monday, Oct 1st! Read more →
Cruise
Reasonable Faith Roots of Christian Civilization Cruise Find out more →
RF App
Get the free Reasonable Faith App for iPhone, iPad, & Android! Download →
Scholarly ArticlesArticles published in peer-reviewed journals
Popular ArticlesIntended for a general audience
DebatesSelect transcriptions of Dr. Craig's debates
Q & AWeekly question and answer
Video / AudioDebates, Talks, and Interviews
Reasonable Faith PodcastConversations with William Lane Craig
Defenders PodcastClass on Christian doctrine and apologetics
Current Events BlogAudio commentary on current events
