Any Dudes Wanna Get Married?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
261

[quote]therajraj wrote:
Why put mixed-marriages on a pedestal?

[/quote]

Because they can fullfill the most basic and critical role for civilized humanity just a well as a racially homogeneous couple. Rearing children in intact homes, with both biological parents present in a committed relationship. Humanity goes on without missing a beat if homosexuality disappeared. If heterosexuality vanished, humanity would disappear.

Not one person supporting gay marriage, yet denying an even larger agenda for marriage, has ever friggen explained why they choose to privilege a mere one other form of relationship above every other imaginative possibility. What is this special function and role of the homosexual that justifies discriminating against other human relationships? What critical role to humanity as whole, and US perpetuity, justifies it being raised above John Doe and his bestfriend-roommate, polyamorous relationships, a social network of single mothers/fathers/widows, etc.

Why does the ‘bigotry’ end with the whopping addition of a mere one form of human relationship to a privileged status? How has ‘bigotry’ even ended by discriminating yet again, which is matter-of-fact what transpires when you privilege one over others? It’s like saying you’re not a ‘bigot’ because you decided the Irish are white enough to join your golf club. What gives?

I’ll repeat myself again.

  1. Pro-GAY marriage is a position taken up by faddish cultural drones. It’s a position which doesn’t have a single hour of actual thought put into it. I know this because it falls apart instantly when they agree that they’d not want the polyamorous-or whatever-afforded the same state status and privileges. They turn into stuttering fools when they realize they’re still discriminating, and doing so without any critical justification for it. The whole “consenting adults,” anti-‘bigotry,’ anti-inequality act goes out the window in a blubbering display of contradicitions and foot-shooting.

  2. Pro-GAY marriage is a position taken up by the anti state marriage folks. They do have a logical reason for supporting gay marriage, consistent with a philosophy. It’s the first step in throwing state marriage into an irreversible tailspin, where it now must recognize any and all imaginative human relationship to be just as privileged, and to even carry the same label if they choose. After all, every single pro-gay argument will be easily recycled for the new novel arrangment being considered. And when it becomes unmanageable for it (the state), it’ll get out of the marriage business completely. We’ve seen them on this here board.

262

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]forlife said:

I don’t think the fundamental definition has changed as you suggest, because it has never focused on childrearing as the primary purpose.[/quote]

This line is so bad, so incredibly dishonest, I had to highlight it on its own after re-reading it. I simply can’t believe I read that statement as part of an argument.[/quote]

For the last time, I don’t play games, I don’t troll, and I don’t lie in order to make a point. There are people on this board that I disagree with vehemently, but we have good discussions because we respect one another’s sincerity. If you question my integrity again, I’m done talking with you.

263

[quote]forlife wrote:

For the last time, I don’t play games, I don’t troll, and I don’t lie in order to make a point. There are people on this board that I disagree with vehemently, but we have good discussions because we respect one another’s sincerity. If you question my integrity again, I’m done talking with you.[/quote]

The statement you made is flatly dishonest. You want to be taken seriously and your argument respected, then spare me (and us) commentary like this. It’s dishonest, and you know it’s dishonest. Don’t pretend otherwise. In this case, you most certainly lied to make a point.

If it bothers you that preposterously dishonest statements get called out, try and different tact - like remaining honest and arguing in good faith.

264

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
2. It’s the launching pad for a much broader goal. That being redefining marriage to mean pretty much nothing to society.
[/quote]

I’ve said it before and repeat it again, it has already been done, by good heterosexual married couples, there is nothing left for you to save. That somebody somewhere has a lasting relationship is nothing more but an anachronism. Maybe the western world should introduce iranian style temporary marriages as an alternative to lifelong committment.[/quote]

Maybe you better check the statistics on that one. The divorce rate is not as high as you may think for those who have been married only only once. Those who have been married multiple times drive up the divorce rate for everyone. Taking away those who have been married multiple times the divorce rate is only something like 25%.

If gay marriage is allowed in all 50 states the divorce rate will skyrocket. It has been demonstrated in multiple studies and survey’s that homosexual men are quite promiscuous. And even those who consider themselves in a long lasting relationship have two to three sexual encounters outside their partner on a yearly basis.

265

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

For the last time, I don’t play games, I don’t troll, and I don’t lie in order to make a point. There are people on this board that I disagree with vehemently, but we have good discussions because we respect one another’s sincerity. If you question my integrity again, I’m done talking with you.[/quote]

The statement you made is flatly dishonest. You want to be taken seriously and your argument respected, then spare me (and us) commentary like this. It’s dishonest, and you know it’s dishonest. Don’t pretend otherwise. In this case, you most certainly lied to make a point.

If it bothers you that preposterously dishonest statements get called out, try and different tact - like remaining honest and arguing in good faith.
[/quote]

Whenever he’s cornered he resorts to these tactics.

266

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]forlife said:

I don’t think the fundamental definition has changed as you suggest, because it has never focused on childrearing as the primary purpose.[/quote]

This line is so bad, so incredibly dishonest, I had to highlight it on its own after re-reading it. I simply can’t believe I read that statement as part of an argument.[/quote]

For the last time, I don’t play games, I don’t troll, and I don’t lie in order to make a point. There are people on this board that I disagree with vehemently, but we have good discussions because we respect one another’s sincerity. If you question my integrity again, I’m done talking with you.[/quote]

Err, if marriage doesn’t carry that primary purpose, why are you trying to privilege ANY form of relationship above others.

If I didn’t think it served that purpose, ordering the propogation of our citizenry into intact homes with both biological parents present, I’d tell hetero couples to go take a flying leap. They’re relationship would be no more special than the relationship of roommates, lacking a justification for special status and privilege. “Oh you’re in love? Great…aaaand, moving on.” They could work out whatever social and relationship arrangments they same way John Doe and his best bestfriend-roommate would have to.

Not one person here has ever given a rational and consistent reason why homosexual relationships are so damned important to the orderly perpetuity of the US, to be privileged above my John Doe. Not one peson here has ever tried. If science told us tomorrow that homosexuality is due to a genetic/hormonal base, and oh yeah, now that we know this for sure, we already have drugs/therapies that could reverse this in the womb, homosexuality would vanish in one generation. Two at the most. And what negative impact would we feel? Nothing more than if John Doe decided marriage wasn’t so bad, and left his best friend, running partner, and supposed bachelor for life comrade sitting alone at the crib.

We’re not supposed to care you dig a man. Ok, fine, on a personal level let’s say I don’t care. Now stop asking me to treat you like your involvment with a man is something I am supposed to care about, to privilege, to treat as special above forms of human relationship, affection, attachment and arrangment. Because noone here ever tried to tell us why it’s so critical to the rest of us to be afforded as much. Do what John Doe would have to do, and don’t forgot the damn documentation.

267

[quote]Grneyes wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
Tirib, let me focus on this part of your statement:
“Gay marriage is simply a natural step in devaluing THE single component that most accounted for our rise and is now the direct cause of our fall. Gays can do what they want. I will not be kicking their doors down, but DO NOT attempt to sell that to me as marriage or a family.”

It sounds like you don’t have a problem with gays per se. >>>[/quote]Follow me please. According to the Word of God it is an abomination. A damnable perversion of the created order of the holy designer. Therefore I abhor the practice accordingly as one who proclaims Jesus as my Lord. HOWEVER, my life before Christ was also a damnable abomination and I regularly committed acts of all kinds that should have bought me a one way ticket to the lake of fire. It is only by the unsearchable grace of a merciful God that I type this as a new creature in Christ having been transformed by the power of His blood and resurrection. I am not allowed to hate or self righteously condescend to ANYBODY.

Take elder forlife as an example. I honestly and truly pray for him AND his “partner”. He may not know or believe this, but I have invested myself in him. I care about him. I want him as my brother. How can that ever be if somebody were to round him up and kill him? That’s not what I want. This is not theocratic Israel. One strike and you’re out. I should have been struck dead where I stood ten thousand times. How am I gonna put my nose in the air and cringe and wince at the “filthy fag and his homo boyfriend”? No sir. To me he’s just another lost man who needs Jesus. My hand is always out to him. [quote]MikeTheBear wrote:<<< I mean, unlike those folks at Westboro Baptist, you’re not looking to round up gays and put them in prison. >>>[/quote]Phelps and his Westboro crew are traitors to the very gospel of grace they claim to preach. They do not know their own sin and it is that that produces their anti-Christian holier than thou hatred. [quote]MikeTheBear wrote:I’m guessing you probably don’t care if gay couples buy houses together, live together, make medical decisions for one another, and inherit property when one partner passes away. You have a problem with attaching the word “marriage” and “family” to such relationships. Is that right? >>>[/quote] As I said. I have a major problem with homosexuality period. My purpose in their regard on this planet though is to reflect to them the everlasting lovingkindness shown to me. As I read the scriptures, that purpose is not served by unduly suffocating their lives. I would like it if nobody was gay, but being that some are, I’m not going to be the one to tell otherwise peaceable citizens who can legally do what within the context of their private life. I will however never relent from calling them to repentance and declaring their lifestyle the horrific sin that it is.

Lastly for now, NO NO NO a thousand times NO!!! Making homosexuality marriage and or family is as I say, another indicative of a society that has clearly lost it’s way and is not long for this world in anything like it’s historical stature. To sum up? I would enter a burning building to drag elder forlife to safety. I really would (as I’m preaching the gospel to him even if he was unconscious =] ) That is not just talk and I would not be sorry I did even if he told to f**k off after I saved his life. The Lord loved me and did not give up on me long after I had given up on myself. How can I give anybody else less? Homosexuality is still a capitol crime before the throne of the most high God and I will never dare call it anything else or accept it’s being given social status reserved for a man, his female wife and their children. Many will write me off (again) as an anachronistic fanatical religious antique best put away in an attic somewhere. I couldn’t care less. [/quote]

I’m sorry, I haven’t read the whole thread yet so I don’t know if someone has pointed this out or not, but when you say you’re praying for forlife and his partner, you’re praying they’ll find God and Jesus and become straight. You’re not praying for a long healthy life, unless that long healthy life is lived as a STRAIGHT person. Please say what you mean when you say you’re “praying” for a gay person. What you mean is, you pray to your God that they find the “error” of their ways and turn straight. Like it’s an option? Again, 99.9% of gay people are born gay. They’ve known it their whole lives. We’ve found genes for a ton of other things, I’m sure at some point they will isolate that gene as well. I think the only cases of people turning gay are women who have been repeatedly sexually abused by men and in turn find men sexually abhorrent and women as sexually safe.

Having said what I’ve said, I’m done with this debate. There’s no use debating with a still wet-behind-the-ears brainwashed catechumen who lost his ability to think without first consulting the Bible and the rest of the religious conservative die hards in here. If it’s not said in the Bible, I guess it isn’t true. FUCK THAT.
[/quote]

Exactly. Believers sell their snake oil solution to impressionable gay young adults, setting them up for a lifetime of anxiety, depression, repression, and unhappiness. And based on what? Nothing more than their blind “faith” in a supernatural being that they believe hates homosexuality. It’s tragic.

I was one of those impressionable gay young adults. I believed my church leaders when they assured me that god wanted me to marry a woman, and that everything would work out. Despite decades of studying the scriptures, praying, attending church, serving a mission, and every other possible thing I could do, my sexual orientation never changed. I was honest with my wife about my orientation before proposing to her. I felt she had the right to know. Yet we decided to get married anyway, based on “faith” that the god we believed in would make everything all right. I was deeply damaged by it all, and my wife at the time was also deeply damaged.

However well intentioned they may be, believers are hurting people due to their own misguided beliefs. This is why I say that I have nothing against religion if it makes people happy, as long as believers don’t push their beliefs on others. Unfortunately, sometimes they do just that.

268

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

For the last time, I don’t play games, I don’t troll, and I don’t lie in order to make a point. There are people on this board that I disagree with vehemently, but we have good discussions because we respect one another’s sincerity. If you question my integrity again, I’m done talking with you.[/quote]

The statement you made is flatly dishonest. You want to be taken seriously and your argument respected, then spare me (and us) commentary like this. It’s dishonest, and you know it’s dishonest. Don’t pretend otherwise. In this case, you most certainly lied to make a point.

If it bothers you that preposterously dishonest statements get called out, try and different tact - like remaining honest and arguing in good faith.
[/quote]

That’s it, I’m done with you. Fuck off and don’t address me again.

269

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]forlife said:

I don’t think the fundamental definition has changed as you suggest, because it has never focused on childrearing as the primary purpose.[/quote]

This line is so bad, so incredibly dishonest, I had to highlight it on its own after re-reading it. I simply can’t believe I read that statement as part of an argument.[/quote]

For the last time, I don’t play games, I don’t troll, and I don’t lie in order to make a point. There are people on this board that I disagree with vehemently, but we have good discussions because we respect one another’s sincerity. If you question my integrity again, I’m done talking with you.[/quote]

Err, if marriage doesn’t carry that primary purpose, why are you trying to privilege ANY form of relationship above others.

If I didn’t think it served that purpose, ordering the propogation of our citizenry into intact homes with both biological parents present, I’d tell hetero couples to go take a flying leap. They’re relationship would be no more special than the relationship of roommates, lacking a justification for special status and privilege. “Oh you’re in love? Great…aaaand, moving on.” They could work out whatever social and relationship arrangments they same way John Doe and his best bestfriend-roommate would have to.

Not one person here has ever given a rational and consistent reason why homosexual relationships are so damned important to the orderly perpetuity of the US, to be privileged above my John Doe. Not one peson here has ever tried. If science told us tomorrow that homosexuality is due to a genetic/hormonal base, and oh yeah, now that we know this for sure, we already have drugs/therapies that could reverse this in the womb, homosexuality would vanish in one generation. Two at the most. And what negative impact would we feel? Nothing more than if John Doe decided marriage wasn’t so bad, and left his best friend, running partner, and supposed bachelor for life comrade sitting alone at the crib.

We’re not supposed to care you dig a man. Ok, fine, on a personal level let’s say I don’t care. Now stop asking me to treat you like your involvment with a man is something I am supposed to care about, to privilege, to treat as special above forms of human relationship, affection, attachment and arrangment. Because noone here ever tried to tell us why it’s so critical to the rest of us to be afforded as much. Do what John Doe would have to do, and don’t forgot the damn documentation.[/quote]

If marriage is only about raising biological children, you ought to support making it a requirement. If a straight couple wants to get married and adopt children instead, deny them marriage. If an infertile couple wants to get married, too bad. If a fertile couple wants to get married, but have no desire for children, refuse them.

It’s a ridiculous argument, and millions of straight couples would be up in arms if we said they couldn’t get married unless they had biological children.

270

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
2. It’s the launching pad for a much broader goal. That being redefining marriage to mean pretty much nothing to society.
[/quote]

I’ve said it before and repeat it again, it has already been done, by good heterosexual married couples, there is nothing left for you to save. That somebody somewhere has a lasting relationship is nothing more but an anachronism. Maybe the western world should introduce iranian style temporary marriages as an alternative to lifelong committment.[/quote]

Maybe you better check the statistics on that one. The divorce rate is not as high as you may think for those who have been married only only once. Those who have been married multiple times drive up the divorce rate for everyone. Taking away those who have been married multiple times the divorce rate is only something like 25%.

If gay marriage is allowed in all 50 states the divorce rate will skyrocket. It has been demonstrated in multiple studies and survey’s that homosexual men are quite promiscuous. And even those who consider themselves in a long lasting relationship have two to three sexual encounters outside their partner on a yearly basis.
[/quote]

I’m not referring to statistics, I’m referring to what marriages look like. And that what I see doesn’t show anything special that would suffer from gay marriages. Some people stay committed to their family project, some cheat their spouse all the time and teach their children to lie as a byproduct, but stay married for whatever reasons. What’s the value in that? I totally fail, and I mean totally, to see what negative gay marriages can bring into the world of heteromarriages. Every negative aspect is already there and in full blossom.

271

[quote]forlife wrote:

If marriage is only about raising biological children, you ought to support making it a requirement. If a straight couple wants to get married and adopt children instead, deny them marriage. If an infertile couple wants to get married, too bad. If a fertile couple wants to get married, but have no desire for children, refuse them.

It’s a ridiculous argument, and millions of straight couples would be up in arms if we said they couldn’t get married unless they had biological children.[/quote]

Nope, all straight marriages fullfill my model for society. Numbers, in regards to my model, ensure the purpose in putting it on a pedestal. Say thanks to nature. No need to micromanage, as numbers alone fullfill the purpose. Birds and bees stuff.

Homosexual marriage doesn’t even offer that much.

272

it has nothing to do with religion, per se.
it’s a political issue. no more, no less.

the State is meant to protect and promote the “res publica”, the “general interest”.

as such, it should NOT endorse, promote, prescribe or privilege anything that can’t be generalized.
homosexuality can’t be generalized, for obvious reasons.
Therefore it should NOT be endorsed, promoted, prescribed or privileged by the State.

Tolerated yes. Protected maybe. but that’s it.

273

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

If marriage is only about raising biological children, you ought to support making it a requirement. If a straight couple wants to get married and adopt children instead, deny them marriage. If an infertile couple wants to get married, too bad. If a fertile couple wants to get married, but have no desire for children, refuse them.

It’s a ridiculous argument, and millions of straight couples would be up in arms if we said they couldn’t get married unless they had biological children.[/quote]

Nope, all straight marriages fullfill my model for society. Numbers, in regards to my model, ensure the purpose in putting it on a pedestal. Say thanks to nature. No need to micromanage, as numbers alone fullfill the purpose. Birds and bees stuff.

Homosexual marriage doesn’t even offer that much. [/quote]

The point is that your model is fulfilled without including the millions of straight couples adopting children, infertile straight couples, and straight couples that don’t want children.

Why should these millions of couples be allowed to marry if, as you claim, the purpose of marriage is to order biological offspring?

By allowing them to marry, you are acknowledging that marriage serves an important purpose beyond having biologic children.

274

[quote]forlife wrote:

If marriage is only about raising biological children, you ought to support making it a requirement. If a straight couple wants to get married and adopt children instead, deny them marriage. If an infertile couple wants to get married, too bad. If a fertile couple wants to get married, but have no desire for children, refuse them.[/quote]

No one said “only”, the point was originally stated as “rpiamry purpose” - you keep shifting the goal posts to help yourself - but beyond that, this argument has been cut to ribbons in quite possibly hundreds of responses. Allowing heterosexuals to marry - even infertile ones - support the mission of marriage for many reasons.

It’s not worth repeating yet again - although we see yet another instance of your desire to simply hit “reset” on arguments that have been hashed out chapter and verse.

No, it’s not ridiculous, and in any event, you arguing against a straw man. Marriage has always primarily about ordering the production and raising of children. It can’t be disputed. We can change that deifinition and mission, but it would exactly that: a change from an existing, undisputed definition.

Your dishonesty is astonishing. And what you fail to realize is that your desperate, dishonest and frankly outlandish positions that you stake out actually hurt the case of gay marriage.

275

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

If marriage is only about raising biological children, you ought to support making it a requirement. If a straight couple wants to get married and adopt children instead, deny them marriage. If an infertile couple wants to get married, too bad. If a fertile couple wants to get married, but have no desire for children, refuse them.

It’s a ridiculous argument, and millions of straight couples would be up in arms if we said they couldn’t get married unless they had biological children.[/quote]

Nope, all straight marriages fullfill my model for society. Numbers, in regards to my model, ensure the purpose in putting it on a pedestal. Say thanks to nature. No need to micromanage, as numbers alone fullfill the purpose. Birds and bees stuff.

Homosexual marriage doesn’t even offer that much. [/quote]

The point is that your model is fulfilled without including the millions of straight couples adopting children, infertile straight couples, and straight couples that don’t want children.

Why should these millions of couples be allowed to marry if, as you claim, the purpose of marriage is to order biological offspring?

By allowing them to marry, you are acknowledging that marriage serves an important purpose beyond having biologic children.[/quote]

Stop asking the same question over and over when the answer is so obvious. For every married heterosexual couple, the model (one man, on woman) is reinforced as a social good. The purpose is then fullfilled through numbers and nature. No micromanagement required. A model through which, birds and bees stuff folks, fullfills the purpose over the breadth of a population…Honestly, I can’t believe this actually required explanation.

Stop. Deal with my point. What makes your homosexuality so special to the rest of us, that we are to actively discriminate (oh noes) again, and raise your relationship up for status and privilege. Up on a pedestal alongside an institution that actuall deals with no less than the orderly bearing and rearing of our citizenry from history into oblivion. It has no more worth to the humanity and the rest of us than friendships, polyamorous lifestyles, or some niche social network (a widow’s association). What happens in the bedroom is your business? Start friggen acting like it. Be it simply sleeping apart in seperate beds as roomates, or lusting after each other. Heterosexual marriage on the otherhand orders a critical function for the sake of future generations. You’re not special enough to join the club.

276

[quote]kamui wrote:

it has nothing to do with religion, per se.
it’s a political issue. no more, no less.

the State is meant to protect and promote the “res publica”, the “general interest”.

as such, it should NOT endorse, promote, prescribe or privilege anything that can’t be generalized.
homosexuality can’t be generalized, for obvious reasons.
Therefore it should NOT be endorsed, promoted, prescribed or privileged by the State.

Tolerated yes. Protected maybe. but that’s it.

[/quote]

I was addressing the negative effects of homophobic religious beliefs on people’s lives in that post, aside from the political question.

On your point, being black can’t be generalized, believing in Allah can’t be generalized, being disabled can’t be generalized etc. yet it would be discriminatory to offer marriage only to whites, Christians, and people without disabilities.

277

I don’t see your point sloth.

Heterosexual marriage ALSO needs to be micromanaged.

In ancient Greece fully grown men well into their late 20’s and 30’s would marry girls aged 12-15. This fulfills yours birds and bees requirement but we do not allow it in North American society today.

Under your model should this be allowed?

278

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

If marriage is only about raising biological children, you ought to support making it a requirement. If a straight couple wants to get married and adopt children instead, deny them marriage. If an infertile couple wants to get married, too bad. If a fertile couple wants to get married, but have no desire for children, refuse them.

It’s a ridiculous argument, and millions of straight couples would be up in arms if we said they couldn’t get married unless they had biological children.[/quote]

Nope, all straight marriages fullfill my model for society. Numbers, in regards to my model, ensure the purpose in putting it on a pedestal. Say thanks to nature. No need to micromanage, as numbers alone fullfill the purpose. Birds and bees stuff.

Homosexual marriage doesn’t even offer that much. [/quote]

The point is that your model is fulfilled without including the millions of straight couples adopting children, infertile straight couples, and straight couples that don’t want children.

Why should these millions of couples be allowed to marry if, as you claim, the purpose of marriage is to order biological offspring?

By allowing them to marry, you are acknowledging that marriage serves an important purpose beyond having biologic children.[/quote]

Stop asking the same question over and over when the answer is so obvious. For every married heterosexual couple, the model (one man, on woman) is reinforced as a social good. The purpose is then fullfilled through numbers and nature. No micromanagement required. A model through which, birds and bees stuff folks, fullfills the purpose over the breadth of a population…Honestly, I can’t believe this actually required explanation.

Stop. Deal with my point. What makes your homosexuality so special to the rest of us, that we are to actively discriminate (oh noes) again, and raise your relationship up for status and privilege. Up on a pedestal alongside an institution that actuall deals with no less than the orderly bearing and rearing of our citizenry from history into oblivion. It has no more worth to the humanity and the rest of us than friendships, polyamorous lifestyles, or some niche social network (a widow’s association). What happens in the bedroom is your business? Start friggen acting like it. Be it simply sleeping apart in seperate beds as roomates, or lusting after each other. Heterosexual marriage on the otherhand orders a critical function for the sake of future generations. You’re not special enough to join the club.[/quote]

Now you’re changing models.

First you said the model of marriage was to provide a mechanism for ordering biological offspring.

Now you’re saying the model of marriage is one man, one woman.

Which is it?

If the former, allowing infertile, unwilling, and adoptive parents to marry directly CONTRADICTS, CIRCUMVENTS, and WEAKENS the model you claim to support.

If you want to protect what you insist is the real purpose of marriage, you should DISALLOW straight couples from getting married, who lack the ability and/or the intent to have biological children. By allowing them to do so, you are undermining the purpose you claim to support.

Then again, maybe this is just a sham argument to rationalize discriminating against gay couples.

279

[quote]therajraj wrote:
I don’t see your point sloth.

Heterosexual marriage ALSO needs to be micromanaged.

In ancient Greece fully grown men well into their late 20’s and 30’s would marry girls aged 12-15. This fulfills yours birds and bees requirement but we do not allow it in North American society today.

Under your model should this be allowed?[/quote]

You know I mean we don’t have to require fertility. The purpose is handled by sheer numbers. Birds and bees. Now, if only I could get some questions answered. What uber function does homosexuality, being of supposed importance to an orderly, self-sustaining, civilization offer? What makes it soooo special that we agree to discriminate (not antidiscriminate) to raise homosexuality above all other relationships. Noone even tries to answer this. There is none. There’s no impact in the absence of homosexuality. They could be best-friends as far as humanity would be concerned. But go ahead, someone give the reasoning behind this out singling out of one human relationship, one human arrangment. Please do, I’m becoming convinced noone wants to even try.

I grow tired of the objectively stupid bigotry claims from pro-gay marriage folk who’d exit the ‘anti-discrimination’ train after gay marriage is realized…that is, discriminating again all other imaginatve arrangments left behind.

280

[quote]forlife wrote:
First you said the model of marriage was to provide a mechanism for ordering biological offspring.

Now you’re saying the model of marriage is one man, one woman.

Which is it?

[/quote]

Bold and underlined for emphasis.

Omg…There is no ‘which is it.’ One leads to the other. I sit here completely dumbfounded…