By the way, the condemnation also comes from the New Testament.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Sloth wrote:
In it’s own way, you do make my case. The intent was for the naturally productive and smallest unit to marry. I won’t attack you for saying it, by the way. I am a bigot.
So what you’re saying is that we should allow one religion to dictate how everyone lives.
Ok.
Gotcha.[/quote]
You actually brought up religion…We’re discussing a secular goal of encouraging the long term/life long coupling of the smallest possible unit to propagate, and raise in a home with both biological parents present, our citizenship. The ecouraging, the incentive, is achieved with government carrot and stick. Set aside benefits.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
You’re wrong. In addition to family FORMATION, 1. REARING of children, and 2. providing a stabilizing influence that benefits the whole society are almost invariably touted as key benefits of marriage. Why do these still not hold true for gays? The government would have to answer that and much more.
Because rearing of children within a biological family formation provides the stabilizing influence for the whole of society. [/quote]
So you say.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
You actually brought up religion…We’re discussing a secular goal of encouraging the long term/life long coupling of the smallest possible unit to propagate, and raise in a home with both biological parents present, our citizenship. The ecouraging, the incentive, is achieved with government carrot and stick. Set aside benefits.[/quote]
I’m sure your intent is secular.
Really, I believe you.
It’s just so hard to believe that line when most, if not all opponents to gay marriage are the same ones that “found Jesus/Allah/God”.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Sloth wrote:
In it’s own way, you do make my case. The intent was for the naturally productive and smallest unit to marry. I won’t attack you for saying it, by the way. I am a bigot.
So what you’re saying is that we should allow one religion to dictate how everyone lives.
Ok.
Gotcha.
You actually brought up religion…We’re discussing a secular goal of encouraging the long term/life long coupling of the smallest possible unit to propagate, and raise in a home with both biological parents present, our citizenship. The ecouraging, the incentive, is achieved with government carrot and stick. Set aside benefits.[/quote]
No, we were discussing the secular goals and benefits of marriage at large. There is no such concensus that it is limited to the life long couling of the smallest possible unit to propagate and raise in a home with both biological parents.
Hell, we might as well revoke all marriage benefits from couples who can’t have children. Those who adopt. And second marriages of longlasting duration where the parties are not biological parents of all the children they are raising. They don’t satisfy your narrow defintion.
Forget about all the evidence that married couples tend to be healthier, wealtier, and more sexually satisfied than single counterparts entirely irrespective of whether children come from the relationship. See Linda J. Waite’s The Case for Marriage: Why Married People Are Happier, Healthier, and Better Off Financially. Among many other sources.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Hell, we might as well revoke all marriage benefits from couples who can’t have children. Those who adopt. And second marriages of longlasting duration where the parties are not biological parents of all the children they are raising. They don’t satisfy your narrow defintion.
[/quote]
-
Couples that can’t have children: Ah, but the desired model is still there, the pairing of a single male and female as the smallest naturally reproductive unit. They still act as a model for the goal that has been incentivised by government.
-
Adoption and Remarriage: Same as above. They still serve the end, by presenting the naturally reproductive unit in which biological children can be raised.
Edit-
- You’d likely discourage marriage. At least, frighten people into putting it off. After all, they’d then be on record with some governmental body as being infertile, barren, shooting blanks.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Hell, we might as well revoke all marriage benefits from couples who can’t have children. Those who adopt. And second marriages of longlasting duration where the parties are not biological parents of all the children they are raising. They don’t satisfy your narrow defintion.
-
Couples that can’t have children: Ah, but the desired model is still there, the pairing of a single male and female as the smallest naturally reproductive unit. They still act as a model for the goal that has been incentivised by government.
-
Adoption and Remarriage: Same as above. They still serve the end, by presenting the naturally reproductive unit in which biological children can be raised.
Edit-
- You’d likely discourage marriage. At least, frighten people into putting it off. After all, they’d then be on record with some governmental body as being infertile, barren, shooting blanks.[/quote]
Couples that don’t want to have children. Whatever. All the evidence shows that married people tend to be happier, more stable, and more successful whether or not there are any children. Children are not and have never been the sole goal of marriage. Nor are they the only reason why marriage is good for individuals and society.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
ZEB wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
ZEB wrote:
forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
I understand what you’re saying forlife, however as I’ve said so many times before; most normal healthy heterosexual men do not have sex with other men.
Most normal heterosexual men are not raised in a culture/religion that demonizes their sexual orientation. It is impossible for you to understand that, because you haven’t been on the other side.
Are you claiming that if homosexuality were not demonized every man would want to have sex with another man? I’m sure you really don’t believe that forlife.
I’m close to believing you actually read that in his post.
I think what he meant was more along the lines of: if a heterosexual man was in a society that pressured him to be gay, that demonized heterosexuality, that heterosexual man would be far far more likely to have sexual activity with a man at some point in his life.
It’s all pure conjecture on forlifes part.
Similar to the downfall and threat gay marriage poses to traditional marriage.[/quote]
Your argument has no merit as that can be said of any long standing institution. Why not tear it down if a tiny fraction of people want it torn down?
Makes no sense.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
ZEB wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
ZEB wrote:
forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
I understand what you’re saying forlife, however as I’ve said so many times before; most normal healthy heterosexual men do not have sex with other men.
Most normal heterosexual men are not raised in a culture/religion that demonizes their sexual orientation. It is impossible for you to understand that, because you haven’t been on the other side.
Are you claiming that if homosexuality were not demonized every man would want to have sex with another man? I’m sure you really don’t believe that forlife.
I’m close to believing you actually read that in his post.
I think what he meant was more along the lines of: if a heterosexual man was in a society that pressured him to be gay, that demonized heterosexuality, that heterosexual man would be far far more likely to have sexual activity with a man at some point in his life.
It’s all pure conjecture on forlifes part.
Similar to the downfall and threat gay marriage poses to traditional marriage.
Your argument has no merit as that can be said of any long standing institution. Why not tear it down if a tiny fraction of people want it torn down?
Makes no sense.
[/quote]
No, the point is that it’s pure conjecture that it would tear it down or threaten it. Whatever. It’s Monday now, and I won’t have time to really post again till the weekend.
Why would society want to encourage something like homosexuality? Its obviously a defect in the people doing it (sex is, afterall, meant for procreation).
I don’t know the cause of being homosexual is, nor do I care that much, but it seems like being gay would be like having an illness. Why would you want to remain ill?
We should offer a check to gays who get vascectomies, so maybe someday this blight on humanity will be eradicated.
(Guys, we are only 30 posts shy of 1000, the ‘golden number’ here on the Nation. Keep going!!)
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I said that gay marriage would “equalize” family arrangements generally and would thus produce more non-traditional family arrangements - a bad idea. We don’t more kids outside the traditional family relationship - there are already too many. We need to correct that error, as I said before.[/quote]
Would you please take a moment to just think? Don’t respond immediately. Don’t shoot from the hip. Simply think about what you are saying here.
You are arguing that gay marriage increases the number of non-traditional family relationships in which children are raised.
However…
You have already acknowledged that gay marriage doesn’t have this effect on existing children. For example, children raised in a foster facility would now be raised by loving same sex parents. In both cases, the children are in “non-traditional family relationships”, so there is no increase as you claim.
You have also acknowledged that children born to straight couples are not any more likely to be raised by gay parents if you allow gay marriage.
So what is left?
Surrogacy? Are you arguing that it is better for children not to be born at all than to be raised by same sex parents?
Please explain how gay marriage increases the number of non-traditional relationships in which children are raised.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Are you claiming that if homosexuality were not demonized every man would want to have sex with another man? I’m sure you really don’t believe that forlife.
[/quote]
Straw man.
You claimed that it is impossible for men to have sex with other men under “normal” circumstances.
I pointed out that when culture strongly favors a particular behavior, such as with the Spartans valuing sex between men, it is indeed possible for the majority of men to have sex with men despite their natural orientation.
Does that mean most of the Spartans were gay? Obviously not.
What it does mean is that people can act contrary to their natural orientation when under the influence of powerful cultural or religious pressures.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Why would society want to encourage something like homosexuality? Its obviously a defect in the people doing it (sex is, afterall, meant for procreation).
[/quote]
Because god knows that all straight couples stop having sex once past their childbearing years.
Infertile couples never have sex at all.
And of course people never masturbate.
Sex serves no purpose whatsoever beyond procreation.
Gotcha.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Sloth wrote:
You actually brought up religion…We’re discussing a secular goal of encouraging the long term/life long coupling of the smallest possible unit to propagate, and raise in a home with both biological parents present, our citizenship. The ecouraging, the incentive, is achieved with government carrot and stick. Set aside benefits.
I’m sure your intent is secular.
Really, I believe you.
It’s just so hard to believe that line when most, if not all opponents to gay marriage are the same ones that “found Jesus/Allah/God”.[/quote]
If you are going to bring it up there are 2 sides to that coin; or most who support immorality are those who fell out of grace.
Can you debate the secular side with them, they are not using religion. sorry for barging in.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
I’m sure your intent is secular.
Really, I believe you.
It’s just so hard to believe that line when most, if not all opponents to gay marriage are the same ones that “found Jesus/Allah/God”.[/quote]
Great, you believe me. We can drop it then.
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
If you are going to bring it up there are 2 sides to that coin; or most who support immorality are those who fell out of grace.
Can you debate the secular side with them, they are not using religion. sorry for barging in.[/quote]
Oh horseshit. The world is not divided between the religious and the atheist. Both have assholes and you know it.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
ZEB wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
ZEB wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
ZEB wrote:
forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
I understand what you’re saying forlife, however as I’ve said so many times before; most normal healthy heterosexual men do not have sex with other men.
Most normal heterosexual men are not raised in a culture/religion that demonizes their sexual orientation. It is impossible for you to understand that, because you haven’t been on the other side.
Are you claiming that if homosexuality were not demonized every man would want to have sex with another man? I’m sure you really don’t believe that forlife.
I’m close to believing you actually read that in his post.
I think what he meant was more along the lines of: if a heterosexual man was in a society that pressured him to be gay, that demonized heterosexuality, that heterosexual man would be far far more likely to have sexual activity with a man at some point in his life.
It’s all pure conjecture on forlifes part.
Similar to the downfall and threat gay marriage poses to traditional marriage.
Your argument has no merit as that can be said of any long standing institution. Why not tear it down if a tiny fraction of people want it torn down?
Makes no sense.
No, the point is that it’s pure conjecture that it would tear it down or threaten it. Whatever. It’s Monday now, and I won’t have time to really post again till the weekend.[/quote]
And my response is that you can say that about any institution as well. Where is the proof that gay marriage will not harm the institution of marriage? The real answer is something that I suggested a while ago when debating this very topic with forlife. First prove that it will actually help the institution of marriage. How does it strengthen this long standing institution?
Certainly the promiscuity in the gay community speaks to the inherent problem of offering up our marriage institution as an experiment.
If you can prove that gay marriage will not harm the institution then I’m for gay marriage, simple. If you cannot demonstrate how it will help the institution of marriage then I am certainly not for it.
Even before we change a driving age we have to prove that it is safe, why not the same standard for marriage?
Is it because gays simply want their way and will whine and protest if they don’t get it?
Not a good enough reason in my book, and not good enough reason for those who voted it down in four states.
Some things are not that complicated. There is no amount of gay militancy that will change this.
Gay “marriage” isn’t going to have any effect on gay promiscuity any more than marriage has an effect on heterosexual promiscuity.
Gay “marriage” will be a lightly used institution, as it is in Europe and the UK. Few gay men will get married. It will mostly be used by lesbians, and gay men will continue to contract (and drop like flies from) HIV and other newly fatal STDs.
The gay militants just want a political victory and validation from society for their entire worldview. They may achieve the political victory through the courts, in the long run. They will do so at the expense of the goodwill of everyone else.
When the Muslims increase in numbers as they have in Europe, gays will have much more to worry about than the dreaded “Christianists” that HIV-cocktail addled kooks like Andrew Sullivan fear. Oh well. The gays should enjoy their ten years or so in the sun before the permanent plunge into a decidedly more homophobic trajectory for Western civilization spurred on by the growing shari’ah movement aided, paradoxically, by gays themselves.
The future for gays in the West is dim indeed.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Would you please take a moment to just think? Don’t respond immediately. Don’t shoot from the hip. Simply think about what you are saying here.[/quote]
Enough with the lectures about “thinking” - you’ve proven to be nothing short of unoriginal and lacking depth this entire time.
Correct - as a going concern, if we enact gay marriage, more children will be raised by gay couples than they have been in the past.
No, as I have said too many times, I acknowledged that gay marriage would have no effect on getting existing
children back into the care of the biological parents that created them. That they are already in the care of a single parent or foster care is a separate question, and marriage is designed to prevent children from ever being in this care as an initial matter.
As I mentioned earlier, the increase occurs as a going concern, that is, in the future. I have already stated this, and in your doe-eyed zeal, you skipped past it.
I’ll type this slow: gay marriage does nothing to prevent future children from being born or raised in a situation outside of the biological parents - one of marriage’s ultimate goals - and actually increases more children being raised in gay families.
You have said yourself, over and over: you want gay marriage to be a mirror of straight marriage, and you want all the benefits so that gay couples can raise children with the same advantages as straight couples. By your own admission you have stated that gay marriage will make child-raising more palatable for gay couples - it is one of your central themes as to why we should have it.
As such, by your own arguments we have heard (non-stop), instituting those benefits would certainly increase the number of children being raised in gay families - I know it, and you know it… better still, more than knowing it, your hope is that that is true.
To repeat, that has been one of your central arguments: that it will be “good for the children”, and if it is “good for the children”, and as a result, more gay couples in the future will certainly try to raise ever more children.
To suggest otherwise is the height of intellectual dishonesty, but you’ve rarely disappointed in that area.
A threshold question: why would any homosexual, who is homosexual as a function of Nature, engage in surrogacy in order to provide what, through Nature’s wisdom, Nature has refused to permit?
And, once again, you tip your hand with the surrogacy issue - you know and hope gay marriage would open gay couples up to a new world of child raising heretofore never seen, either by surrogacy or adoption. You know it, and would love to see gay marriage be that vehicle, because you believe that raising children would be a validation of gay relationships as equal to straight ones.
You want the benefits and incentives of marriage so that gay couples can properly raise children (part of your brain-dead script, cut-and-pasted more times than any of us can count), then try and insist that gay marriage wouldn’t encourage more child raising?
You have hoisted yourself by your own petard - you have refuted yourself.
Asked and answered.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Because rearing of children within a biological family formation provides the stabilizing influence for the whole of society.
So you say.[/quote]
You suspect the benefits of intact homes, with both biological parents present, are a myth?