really ? why ?
are you implying that we would be the last generation on earth if we were all black, muslim or disabled ?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[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.[/quote]
Why does it need to offer anything? We as a society draw arbitrary lines in certain places and always will.
What is the reasoning for having the drinking age at 21 opposed to 20? Are 21 year olds leaps and bounds more mature than 20 year olds?
[quote]forlife wrote:
Then again, maybe this is just a sham argument to rationalize discriminating against gay couples.[/quote]
BIGOT!
You can set your watch by Forlife’s inevitable move of slandering his opponents as a “bigot”. In fact, this lets me know it’s time for lunch. Thanks, Forlife.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Why does it need to offer anything?
[/quote]
Err, because you just made my point. You’ve just recognized any and all human arrangments involving any combination and number of consenting adults, sexually involved or not, as having the social status and privileges. Why not just go ahead and redefine ‘married’ to simply mean ‘adult citizen?’ Or, suddenly you go into incoherent backtracking when it comes to other human arrangments, and the lie is exposed.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Why does it need to offer anything?
[/quote]
Err, because you just made my point. You’ve just recognized any and all human arrangments involving any combination and number of consenting adults, sexually involved or not, as having the social status and privileges. Why not just go ahead and redefine ‘married’ to simply mean ‘adult citizen?’ Or, suddenly you go into incoherent backtracking when it comes to other human arrangments, and the lie is exposed.[/quote]
Because you don’t have to open the floodgates and allow EVERYTHING simply because you changed one thing. As I said in the previous post we are allowed to draw arbitrary lines.
If one day we decide to drop the drop the driving age from 16 to 15, that does not mean we must also allow 8 year olds to drive as well.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Because you don’t have to open the floodgates and allow EVERYTHING simply because you changed one thing. As I said in the previous post we are allowed to draw arbitrary lines.
[/quote]
Then you can arbitrarily exclude homosexuals, along with all other arrangments, in favor of the status quo. So, what’s the issue?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Because you don’t have to open the floodgates and allow EVERYTHING simply because you changed one thing. As I said in the previous post we are allowed to draw arbitrary lines.
[/quote]
Then you can arbitrarily exclude homosexuals, along with all other arrangments, in favor of the status quo. So, what’s the issue?[/quote]
That’s true and perhaps for the longest time it was best homosexual marriages were not recognized by the state. But if popular opinion heads towards approval of gay marriage would it be so bad if we move the line a little?
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Because you don’t have to open the floodgates and allow EVERYTHING simply because you changed one thing. As I said in the previous post we are allowed to draw arbitrary lines.
[/quote]
Then you can arbitrarily exclude homosexuals, along with all other arrangments, in favor of the status quo. So, what’s the issue?[/quote]
That’s true and perhaps for the longest time it was best homosexual marriages were not recognized by the state. But if popular opinion heads towards approval of gay marriage would it be so bad if we move the line a little?
[/quote]
So, basically, to carry this question to it’s logical conclusion, should we go along with defining married as “adult citizen” if that’s popular opinion? No. Sorry, there’s nothing arbitrary about the benefit of bearing and rearing children in intact households. Homosexual relationships might have no impact for humanity, but how heterosexuals order the act is extrememly important to no only us, but most importantly, future generations. Heterosexual marriage isn’t ‘arbitrary.’ It’s status shapes the size and scope of the government, and the social well-being of the people. Period.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[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…
[/quote]
What don’t you get about the fact that one man, one woman DOES NOT MEAN BIOLOGICAL CHILDREN MUST BE PRODUCED?
If biological children are not produced, ALLOWING PEOPLE TO MARRY ANYWAY DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS AND UNDERMINES THE PURPOSE YOU CLAIM MARRIAGE IS SUPPOSED TO FILL.
Your insistence that marriage solely exists to order biological offspring DEFINITIONALLY EXCLUDES ALL STRAIGHT COUPLES THAT CHOOSE NOT TO HAVE CHILDREN, THAT CANNOT HAVE CHILDREN, AND THAT ADOPT CHILDREN.
Therefore, if that is really your standard, you should NOT allow these couples to marry since they don’t fulfill what you claim is the purpose of marriage.
[quote]kamui wrote:
really ? why ?
are you implying that we would be the last generation on earth if we were all black, muslim or disabled ?[/quote]
I’m pointing out that being a minority, which definitionally is not generalizable, doesn’t justify being discriminated against on that basis.
[quote]forlife wrote:
What don’t you get about the fact that one man, one woman DOES NOT MEAN BIOLOGICAL CHILDREN MUST BE PRODUCED?[/quote]
Seriously, it’s time to stop. Over a population, it DOES mean biological children will be produced. That’s natural and historical reality. This is getting ridiculuous. There is no need for micromanagement of hetersexual marriages to that degree, reproduction will happen. In the meantimes, an infertile couple still is a model of one man and one woman, in a committed relationship. One man and one woman, in a committed relationship, the smallest unit capable of bearing an rearing it’s own children in an intact household. The more marriages, the more of a norm. The more of a norm, the more it is aspired toand emulated. That this requires more than one explanation is beyond me. That it requires any, really.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
What don’t you get about the fact that one man, one woman DOES NOT MEAN BIOLOGICAL CHILDREN MUST BE PRODUCED?[/quote]
Seriously, it’s time to stop. Over a population, it DOES mean biological children will be produced. That’s natural and historical reality. This is getting ridiculuous. There is no need for micromanagement of hetersexual marriages to that degree, reproduction will happen. In the meantimes, an infertile couple still is a model of one man and one woman, in a committed relationship. One man and one woman, in a committed relationship, the smallest unit capable of bearing an rearing it’s own children in an intact household. The more marriages, the more of a norm. The more of a norm, the more it is aspired toand emulated. That this requires more than one explanation is beyond me. That it requires any, really.[/quote]
Allowing one man and one woman to marry, when they don’t produce offspring, SABOTAGES and CONTRADICTS your model of marriage existing solely to order biological offspring. It makes a mockery of that model, and it threatens it, because it ALLOWS marriage that doesn’t produce biological offspring. It sends the message that it is ok to marry, even if you will never produce offspring.
More biological children will not be produced by allowing couples to marry who will never produce offspring. In fact, it may encourage couples NOT to have offspring, by offering the benefits of marriage without requiring them to have offspring.
It UNDERMINES the purpose you insist marriage is designed to fulfill.
ok, so it was just a terrible sophism.
marriage is a specific kind of relationship sanctionned and promoted by the State for various but specific reasons (“general interest”, social reproduction, social stability, regulating filiation and parentality, etc).
being black is not a relationship at all. and it’s fully compatible with this societal institution we call marriage.
believing in Allah is not a relationship at all, and it’s fully compatible with this societal institution we call marriage.
being disabled is not a relationship at all, and it’s compatible with this societal institution we call marriage.
being an homosexual couple is a specific relationship, which is not compatible with this societal institution we call marriage.
for an homosexual couple being married we don’t need to “stop discriminating”, we need to change the definition and intent of marriage to please and appease a minority.
which is not, by definition, the general interest.
really, it’s not that hard.
it’s not our fault if you happen to belong to a minority which is not marriable and if your relationship is not universalizable.
you don’t understand because for you, marriage is not a social institution. It’s a “right”.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Seriously, it’s time to stop. Over a population, it DOES mean biological children will be produced. That’s natural and historical reality. This is getting ridiculuous. There is no need for micromanagement of hetersexual marriages to that degree, reproduction will happen. In the meantimes, an infertile couple still is a model of one man and one woman, in a committed relationship. One man and one woman, in a committed relationship, the smallest unit capable of bearing an rearing it’s own children in an intact household. The more marriages, the more of a norm. The more of a norm, the more it is aspired toand emulated. That this requires more than one explanation is beyond me. That it requires any, really.[/quote]
Further, even in infertile couples, most likely one of the individuals is fertile, and their marriage continues to support the traditional mission of marriage by discouraging that the fertile-but-married individual from getting in the business of illegitimate children.
Further still, infertility is not always clear in any event. I’ve personally known couples who were supposed to be infertile who ended up having children. The idiotic rule Forlife insists must be a logical outrgowth of the “marriage is for children” fails for the additional reason that so-called infertile individuals may, in fact, produce children at a later date.
This is getting hard to watch.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Further, even in infertile couples, most likely one of the individuals is fertile, and their marriage continues to support the traditional mission of marriage by discouraging that the fertile-but-married individual from getting in the business of illegitimate children.
[/quote]
Yep! And even when both are infertile, what the child sees is that men and women grow up, take vows, and marry. Nature and numbers fullfills the actual purpose. Infertile couples still exhibit the desired model, period. They support the frequency to which this arrangment is encountered, making it a deeply ingrained norm. I for one won’t go over this point, again. I just will not play these stupid games on this forum anymore.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Further, even in infertile couples, most likely one of the individuals is fertile, and their marriage continues to support the traditional mission of marriage by discouraging that the fertile-but-married individual from getting in the business of illegitimate children.
[/quote]
Yep! And even when both are infertile, what the child sees is that men and women grow up, take vows, and marry. Nature and numbers fullfills the actual purpose. Infertile couples still exhibit the desired model, period. They support the frequency to which this arrangment is encountered, making it a deeply ingrained norm. I for one won’t go over this point, again. I just will not play these stupid games on this forum anymore.[/quote]
How about addressing my point that what the child sees are people getting the benefits of marriage with no intention to ever have children? This directly threatens your model of marriage, because it removes the motivation to have children and offers a CONFLICTING model, whereby people can marry without ever having children.
If people can get married without having children, why the hell would they be motivated and incented to follow your model?
They wouldn’t, and you know it as well as I do.
[quote]kamui wrote:
ok, so it was just a terrible sophism.
marriage is a specific kind of relationship sanctionned and promoted by the State for various but specific reasons (“general interest”, social reproduction, social stability, regulating filiation and parentality, etc).
being black is not a relationship at all. and it’s fully compatible with this societal institution we call marriage.
believing in Allah is not a relationship at all, and it’s fully compatible with this societal institution we call marriage.
being disabled is not a relationship at all, and it’s compatible with this societal institution we call marriage.
being an homosexual couple is a specific relationship, which is not compatible with this societal institution we call marriage.
for an homosexual couple being married we don’t need to “stop discriminating”, we need to change the definition and intent of marriage to please and appease a minority.
which is not, by definition, the general interest.
really, it’s not that hard.
it’s not our fault if you happen to belong to a minority which is not marriable and if your relationship is not universalizable.
you don’t understand because for you, marriage is not a social institution. It’s a “right”.
[/quote]
For the third time, I didn’t say race, religion, and disability status are social institutions. I used those characteristics to challenge your claim that the state should not endorse anything that can’t be generalized.
[quote]forlife wrote:
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.[/quote]
In the Netherlands gay marriage has been legal for 10 years and homosexuality is well accepted. Yet, the rates of anxiety, depression and suicide are still high. These tragic statistics have nothing to do with a Christian influence and a lot to do with how homosexuals spend their free time.
Too simple for you to grasp? Or, are you just in denial?
[quote]forlife wrote:
[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.[/quote]
Join the club TB, this is the typical hissy fit that forlife throws when you catch him in a lie.
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
[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. [/quote]
One cannot change a 5000 year old institution without it “suffering” in some way. And what’s even more scary is that the damage will not be seen right away. It will take years for these chickens to come home to roost.
Between the the incredibly poor health statistics that follow homosexual men like a shadow, to the long term influence that may damage children, to thier promiscutiy (even when in so called committed relationships), to any number of other things. We have no idea what this horrific social experiment will bring forth. But I have a really good idea that it’s not going to be good just from what I’ve seen and read about this particular group.