You know this isn’t true. Either that or you’re twisting definitions again. If you know what he means, don’t argue semantics.
Says you (again).[/quote]
What’s the matter, Mak? Is the cable out, and with no cartoons to watch, you want to feel relevant?
Also, I had no idea that “says you” was such a handy, dandy substantive retort - all this time I have been debating and explaining my position, and all I had to say to people I disagreed with was “says you”.
Who knew?[/quote]
The last time I turned a TV on was two years ago. Get with the times old man.
And if you stopped making arguments based on bullshit, then maybe you’d get more substantial answers. As it stands you still cannot prove the downfall of society because gay marriage becomes legal. Births rates will not plummet, marriage will not fall apart, and the sky will stay in place.
If we had never had state recognized marriage in America, and you were faced with 2 options: State recognition of same and opposite sex marriage, or State recognition of neither, what would people on this forum choose.
If we had never had state recognized marriage and the population, and legislature agreed that recognizing a unit of 2 people of the opposite sex would improve the general wellfare of society, but they were not sure that recognition of same sex units would benefit society, would they have a RIGHT to legally recognize the first and not the second?
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Births rates will not plummet, marriage will not fall apart…[/quote]
Um, they have, and it has. That’s why something as absurd as homosexual marriage is even treated as a debate, instead of simply laughed off and ignored.
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
If we had never had state recognized marriage in America, and you were faced with 2 options: State recognition of same and opposite sex marriage[/quote]
You mean recognition of all creative arrangements between any number of consenting adults of any sex–having sex or not within or without their arrangement? Otherwise, it’s BIGOTRY! Bi…Big.Bigotry! Gasp.
I’d just recognize hetero marriage. There’s no point in recognizing homosexual relationships. The world doesn’t change with or without their relationships anymore than it does for a couple of drinking buddies and their relationship. And hey, IF they’re right and there’s a biological basis for homosexuality, why? Eventually a genetic/hormonal therapy will target homosexuality in the womb and beyond.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Births rates will not plummet, marriage will not fall apart…[/quote]
Um, they have, and it has. That’s why something as absurd as homosexual marriage is even treated as a debate, instead of simply laughed off and ignored.[/quote]
What makes you come off as smallminded and ignorant isnt disagreeing with gay marriage - its approaching the subject so contemptouously.
“Capped just calls everyone who disagrees with gay marriage a bigot” isnt quite true. I do see it as bigotry, though, when the desire to deny homosexuals marriage is a part of a larger anti-gay agenda. When the gay marriage opponent shortly after reveals that they think being gay is “wrong”, and none of their arguments against homosexuality transfer to any other issues, it becomes obvious that their intent isn’t to preserve tradition or a consideration of the intent of the public policy of marriage - its to make sure the law reflects their personal bias.
Most people dont give half a shit about the purpose of marriage, the sanctity of marriage, or traditional marriage, except when it comes to the scary notion that they wont be put on a pedestal over homosexuals. If they were, you’d have equal outcry against divorce and Vegas-style weddings (not to mention the use of marriage for things like immigration and other legal measures). But the reaction to those things, which pose much more threat to heterosexual marriage, is almost nil - while the shouting against gay marriage is a shrill roar. I wonder why that is?
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:<<< Most people dont give half a shit about the purpose of marriage, the sanctity of marriage, or traditional marriage, >>>[/quote]I think that’s a large part of his point. I know it is mine. [quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:<<< except when it comes to the scary notion that they wont be put on a pedestal over homosexuals. If they were, you’d have equal outcry against divorce and Vegas-style weddings (not to mention the use of marriage for things like immigration and other legal measures). But the reaction to those things, which pose much more threat to heterosexual marriage, is almost nil - while the shouting against gay marriage is a shrill roar. I wonder why that is?[/quote]I have and do condemn every other abuse of the covenant of marriage that you mention.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:<<< Most people dont give half a shit about the purpose of marriage, the sanctity of marriage, or traditional marriage, >>>[/quote]I think that’s a large part of his point. I know it is mine. [quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:<<< except when it comes to the scary notion that they wont be put on a pedestal over homosexuals. If they were, you’d have equal outcry against divorce and Vegas-style weddings (not to mention the use of marriage for things like immigration and other legal measures). But the reaction to those things, which pose much more threat to heterosexual marriage, is almost nil - while the shouting against gay marriage is a shrill roar. I wonder why that is?[/quote]I have and do condemn every other abuse of the covenant of marriage that you mention.
[/quote]
Thats good. Though I disagree with your stance on homosexuality, I respect that you’re consistent on those other issues. However, there is still no general opposition to those issues, on the level that there is against gay marriage. No “Prop 9” was against no-fault divorce (or divorce on the grounds of irreconcilable differences) or “Prop 10” was against drive thru weddings in Vegas, or “Prop 11” against marriage immigration purposes.
Certainly you can agree that the difference in general opposition to these other issues shows that, in the majority of cases, its not about traditional marriage or public policy, but part of an anti-gay agenda?
Male and female reproduction organs do the ordering. It says nothing of who raises the child. Your arguments are based on wild hyperbole on things that have not happened anywhere where gay marriage is illegal.[/quote]
No, they don’t. Marriage serves to order reproduction and always has. That is why, genius, there was social stigma attached to children “born out of wedlock” for centuries.
The last time I turned a TV on was two years ago. Get with the times old man.
And if you stopped making arguments based on bullshit, then maybe you’d get more substantial answers. As it stands you still cannot prove the downfall of society because gay marriage becomes legal. Births rates will not plummet, marriage will not fall apart, and the sky will stay in place.[/quote]
Oh, I get substantial answers, just not from you - why? Because, you are an idiot.
And I am not trying to prove the “downfall of society because gay marriage becomes legal” - I’ve said over and over (assuming you can read, and I have my doubts) that gay marriate contributes to an already stumbling society.
Seriously, Mak - go back to scanning the internet for goofy pictures. With every post, you show yourself completely incompetent when the adults are talking.
Male and female reproduction organs do the ordering. It says nothing of who raises the child. Your arguments are based on wild hyperbole on things that have not happened anywhere where gay marriage is illegal.[/quote]
No, they don’t. Marriage serves to order reproduction and always has. That is why, genius, there was social stigma attached to children “born out of wedlock” for centuries.[/quote]
What do you think would be the actual effect on marriage habits if everyone did see marriage as being about ordering reproduction and not the emotional bond between participants? Honest question.
Yes, it does encourage certain reproduction ordering - that is, that men and women commit to long term relationships in which they birth and raise children.
I still think that marriage should be extended to homosexual couples, among the reasons being the chance for adoptive gay parents to have the same benefits/incentive to stay together.[/quote]
Yes, this is kind of stupid. Set aside for a second any larger effect (as I have been addressing), let’s focus on one issue you highlighted: enacting gay marriage for “adoptive gay parents”. This segment of society is, to be charitable, tiny.
We need to enact this institution to address this tiny fraction of the population that may or may not even adopt?
What’s clear here is the exact thing I have been highlighting in post after post: the real reason to enact it is the self-esteem project - the cultural validation of equality - not all these other so-called public policy benefits.
These are just post-hoc rationalizations and backfilling details - as if, for example, Society needs to enact gay marriage for this tiny fraction of adoptive gay parents to have the same benefits. Society doesn’t need this “solution” and isn’t clamoring for said “solution” here. It’s just silly, so let’s call a spade a spade and dispense with the collateral arguments.
What do you think would be the actual effect on marriage habits if everyone did see marriage as being about ordering reproduction and not the emotional bond between participants? Honest question.[/quote]
Well, first, I think it is a fasle choice - marriage is about both, and that is exactly what marriage is designed to accomplish: reinforce that special bond between the two people that bring a child into this world. It isn’t purely utilitarian (though that is part of it) - it’s about both.
That said, I don’t think it’s quite possible to see marriage as “only” about ordering reproduction. Humans aren’t cattle.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
What’s clear here is the exact thing I have been highlighting in post after post: the real reason to enact it is the self-esteem project - the cultural validation of equality - not all these other so-called public policy benefits.
[/quote]
And the real reson to deny it is the self-esteem project for heterosexuals - allowing them a chance at a social pedestal not afforded to homosexuals to reinforce the idea that heterosexuality is “right” and homosexuality is “wrong”. Sloth himself has frankly admitted that he “enjoys the pedestal” and a very common argument agaisnt gay marriage is that marriage will feel less “special” to heterosexuals if homosexuals can do it too, and thus less straight couples will get married (because the club wont be as exclusive and cool anymore).
You dont think the public policy benefits are substantial enough. Some people, myself included, do.
What do you think would be the actual effect on marriage habits if everyone did see marriage as being about ordering reproduction and not the emotional bond between participants? Honest question.[/quote]
Well, first, I think it is a fasle choice - marriage is about both, and that is exactly what marriage is designed to accomplish: reinforce that special bond between the two people that bring a child into this world. It isn’t purely utilitarian (though that is part of it) - it’s about both.
That said, I don’t think it’s quite possible to see marriage as “only” about ordering reproduction. Humans aren’t cattle.
[/quote]
Earlier you said:
“And so, I’ll type this slowly - at the exact time we need to be changing the minds of your majority that think marriage is really about “love, commitment, companionship” and not children comes along a movement that reinforces this wrong-headed idea that marriage is really about “love, commitment, companionship”: the call for gay marriage.”
So while its ok for heterosexuals to see marriage as being (in some part large or small) about “love, commitment, companionship” - its not ok for homosexuals to see it in the same light and want to enter into the same contract?
You write about “that special bond between the two people that bring a child into this world” - do you mean that having a baby is that special bond, or that peole who have babies already have that special bond? Its pretty clearly the case that many people bring children into this world without having a special bond between them, and that some people have “that special bond” without bringing a child into the world.
And the real reson to deny it is the self-esteem project for heterosexuals - allowing them a chance at a social pedestal not afforded to homosexuals to reinforce the idea that heterosexuality is “right” and homosexuality is “wrong”. [/quote]
Incorrect, the relationships are inherently “unequal”. That isn’t the same as right and wrong, though some people may very well feel that way. But, empirically, they are not equal - they are very different. And unless you can come up with a bona fide public policy reason to treat unequal things equal - that benefits society at large - then there’s no reason to pass the law.
Other relationships don’t need the “social pedestal” - because the “social pedestal” is a reward for doing something that also benefits society. We don’t just reward people for their personal and private choices in “love, commitment, companionship”. We really don’t care.
And the “social pedestal” reaffirms the lack of equality on purpose, and always has - we want people to think that permanent tradiotional marriage is better than all the other alternatives, so people will gravitate towards it. That’s been the argument over thousands of posts - one you “equalize” it, as Sloth points out, there’s nothing unique about it and there’s no reason to urge people towards it.
Good, that is a perfectly valid principle. Anything that discourages heterosexual people away from marriage is a bad thing.
Well, you’re wrong, not to put too fine a point on it. Neither you nor Forlife have elucidated any significant public policy reasons. You’ve had your chance to over thousands of posts, but the evidence is lacking. Hell, Forlife has been reduced to arguing that marriage needs to be around to serve as a financial stimulus to the wedding planning industry. They are all minor and negliglible, and we always circle back to the self-esteem project.
So while its ok for heterosexuals to see marriage as being (in some part large or small) about “love, commitment, companionship” - its not ok for homosexuals to see it in the same light and want to enter into the same contract? [/quote]
Sure, it’s fine - who is stopping them from doing so?
You remain confused. The issue is the public institution of marriage, not the private institution of it. They can see it as about “love, commitment, companionship” all they want, and that’s neither here nor there. The question is whether there is any public policy benefit from Society recognizing this private commitment about “love, commitment, companionship” - and the answer is none, the same as it would be for heterosexuals if you take out the issue of children raising, etc.
Incorrect, the relationships are inherently “unequal”. That isn’t the same as right and wrong, though some people may very well feel that way.
[/quote]
Horseshit that “some people may” - the majority do and that is their driving force.
Except that gay marriage doesnt discourage heterosexuals from marriage. The fear is totally unfounded.
In a society where people feel pressured to marry, and both heterosexual and homosexual marriage is available, heterosexuals will still marry. Equallizing all relationships may have that effect, but I’m not arguing for that - I’m arguing for (what I see as) a reasonable expansion of marriage laws.
Horseshit that “some people may” - the majority do and that is their driving force.[/quote]
The amjority of people think that homosexuality is “wrong” - ok, I’ll bite. Show me your statistics.
Sure it does, and so does polygamous marriage, and all other alternatives - anything that begins the “equalization” route to validate all private choices of “love, commitment, companionship” discourages hetersoexuals from marriage, as marriage is properly understood - i.e., the real function and status of marriage and no, not having a big, expensive ceremony and hiring a DJ and having a huge bachelor party and having a fabulous honeymoon. It encourages them to think that marriage is about “love, commitment, companionship” and discourages them from thinking marriage is about the real reason (and acting responsibly in that vein).
You keep cricling back to the same error.
There’s nothing “reasonable” about it because it opens the door to that “equalization”. Pretending that it doesn’t is intellectually dishonest, but we covered that.
Well, you haven’t the made the argument and have spent most of your time on small-ball. I haven’t seen anyone make the argument. So, it is what it is.
So while its ok for heterosexuals to see marriage as being (in some part large or small) about “love, commitment, companionship” - its not ok for homosexuals to see it in the same light and want to enter into the same contract? [/quote]
Sure, it’s fine - who is stopping them from doing so?
You remain confused. The issue is the public institution of marriage, not the private institution of it. They can see it as about “love, commitment, companionship” all they want, and that’s neither here nor there. The question is whether there is any public policy benefit from Society recognizing this private commitment about “love, commitment, companionship” - and the answer is none, the same as it would be for heterosexuals if you take out the issue of children raising, etc.[/quote]
You do realize how ignorant it is to keep implying that “Homosexuals can hold themselves as married” and “They can have celebrations and ceremonies for it, nothing is stopping them”… right?
Whats stopping them from doing so is that they cannot legally do so. That’s blatantly obvious and ignorant that you ask.
You do realize how ignorant it is to keep implying that “Homosexuals can hold themselves as married” and “They can have celebrations and ceremonies for it, nothing is stopping them”… right?
Whats stopping them from doing so is that they cannot legally do so. That’s blatantly obvious and ignorant that you ask.[/quote]
No, marriages are almost entirely private affairs. The only reason marriage is recognized by the state is for the public policy benefits of that institution to Society at large.
There’s nothing “ignorant” about it. My commitment to my wife has exactly zilch to do with the state, and if my state declared tomorrow that all marriages were null and void as a legal matter of public policy, our relationship would not change in the slightest.
That should be the case with any private marriage. I guess it’s not, but if a relationship craves the approval of the state (the self-esteem project, you see), that isn’t anything the state can fix.