Gay Marriage

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
181

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

If reproduction is the bottom line (as you so emphatically argue), then reproduction is the bottom line.[/quote]

It is the bottom line. Therefore, we reinforce the model, male and female, and steer the reproductive act into the institution of marriage.

Because they are still members of the reproductive sexes…

Therefore, they still serve the model. They reinforce it. They provide for frequency of males and females who have directed sex (THE REPRODUCTIVE ACT) into marriage. You imply that I would want to reinforce sex outside of marriage, by increasing encounters with member of the reproductive sexes living sexual lives outside of marriage. Sorry Smh, you’re suggestion that I must support counter-productive alternatives doesn’t make sense. The reproductive sexes do not change due to individual members with reproductive conditions. They are still members of the reproductive sexes, still having sex (the reproductive act). This question is answered.
[/quote]

This is incredibly weak. It is the kind of equivocation that arises when you’re arguing a point that you haven’t really thought through and that you don’t really believe.

If it is their inability to procreate that stands in the way of two men marrying, then it is the ability to procreate that is the essential condition of marriage.

And if it is the ability to procreate that is the essential condition of marriage, then barren women and infertile men should be denied marriage licenses.

182

[quote]smh23 wrote:
As an aside, no one believes that your opposition to gay marriage has anything to do with a consideration for the feelings of the 25 people in the country who’d like to marry a group of people. No one.[/quote]

Oh, I’m concerned with all sorts of silliness people can think up as the next pet cause. Though since you’re all about equality of choice among consenting adults, I’m sure you’re not.

183

[quote]smh23 wrote:
As an aside, no one believes that your opposition to gay marriage has anything to do with a consideration for the feelings of the 25 people in the country who’d like to marry a group of people. No one.[/quote]

Actually over the last decade there has been an enormous rise in polyamorous organisations pushing for just that.

184

[quote]smh23 wrote:

This is incredibly weak. It is the kind of equivocation that arises when you’re arguing a point that you haven’t really thought through and that you don’t really believe.

If it is their inability to procreate that stands in the way of two men marrying, then it is the ability to procreate that is the essential condition of marriage.

And if it is the ability to procreate that is the essential condition of marriage, then barren women and infertile men should be denied marriage licenses.[/quote]

Weak? It’s perfectly sound.

It isn’t the inability of a particular homosexual couple to procreate. It’s that the homosexual act isn’t procreative at all!

Self-evident. And the fact that this didn’t jump out at you before hitting submit, should cause you to rethink who hasn’t thought this through.

185

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

This is incredibly weak. It is the kind of equivocation that arises when you’re arguing a point that you haven’t really thought through and that you don’t really believe.

If it is their inability to procreate that stands in the way of two men marrying, then it is the ability to procreate that is the essential condition of marriage.

And if it is the ability to procreate that is the essential condition of marriage, then barren women and infertile men should be denied marriage licenses.[/quote]

Weak? It’s perfectly sound.

It isn’t the inability of a particular homosexual couple to procreate. It’s that the homosexual act isn’t procreative at all!

Self-evident. And the fact that this didn’t jump out at you before hitting submit, should cause you to rethink who hasn’t thought this through.[/quote]

For a barren woman, the sexual act isn’t procreative at all either.

This can go on ad infinitum.

By the way, how about a woman in her 80s getting married? Much like gay men, she belongs to a class of people who are by definition unable to procreate–post-menopausal women. Surely she shouldn’t be allowed to marry.

186

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
As an aside, no one believes that your opposition to gay marriage has anything to do with a consideration for the feelings of the 25 people in the country who’d like to marry a group of people. No one.[/quote]

Actually over the last decade there has been an enormous rise in polyamorous organisations pushing for just that.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/the-mainstreaming-of-polyamory/[/quote]

I would have to see some harder evidence to believe that there are half a million palyamorous families (or whatever you call them). But even that would be far less than 1% of the population.

But yes, 25 was an exaggeration.

187

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

This is incredibly weak. It is the kind of equivocation that arises when you’re arguing a point that you haven’t really thought through and that you don’t really believe.

If it is their inability to procreate that stands in the way of two men marrying, then it is the ability to procreate that is the essential condition of marriage.

And if it is the ability to procreate that is the essential condition of marriage, then barren women and infertile men should be denied marriage licenses.[/quote]

Weak? It’s perfectly sound.

It isn’t the inability of a particular homosexual couple to procreate. It’s that the homosexual act isn’t procreative at all!

Self-evident. And the fact that this didn’t jump out at you before hitting submit, should cause you to rethink who hasn’t thought this through.[/quote]

For a barren woman, the sexual act isn’t procreative at all either.

This can go on ad infinitum.

By the way, how about a woman in her 80s getting married? Much like gay men, she belongs to a class of people who are by definition unable to procreate–post-menopausal women. Surely she shouldn’t be allowed to marry.[/quote]

Of course she should. Everyone will notice, including the young men and women, the old MALE and FEMALE, married. Reinforcing the model for the reproductive sexes, male and female, to marry.

188

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
As an aside, no one believes that your opposition to gay marriage has anything to do with a consideration for the feelings of the 25 people in the country who’d like to marry a group of people. No one.[/quote]

Actually over the last decade there has been an enormous rise in polyamorous organisations pushing for just that.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/the-mainstreaming-of-polyamory/[/quote]

I would have to see some harder evidence to believe that there are half a million palyamorous families (or whatever you call them). But even that would be far less than 1% of the population.

But yes, 25 was an exaggeration.[/quote]

[quote] You earlier:
To elevate one union of consenting adults above another–and the right to marry is surely an elevation–is unequal and unjust.[/quote]

But you do support their right to marry?

189

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
As an aside, no one believes that your opposition to gay marriage has anything to do with a consideration for the feelings of the 25 people in the country who’d like to marry a group of people. No one.[/quote]

Actually over the last decade there has been an enormous rise in polyamorous organisations pushing for just that.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/the-mainstreaming-of-polyamory/[/quote]

I would have to see some harder evidence to believe that there are half a million palyamorous families (or whatever you call them). But even that would be far less than 1% of the population.

But yes, 25 was an exaggeration.[/quote]

Regardless of the numbers, which I contend are significant(will look up more information if requested,) it’s already in the process of legislative legitimisation in my country. The Greens Party, which is part of a coalition in the federal government and hold the balance of power(along with two independents), are vigorously pushing for it:

http://www.acl.org.au/2012/06/new-video-looks-at-consequences-of-gay-marriage/

Interesting thing about the Greens: the only military conflict they supported in the ME was the Libyan intervention. They also support and promote Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions against Israel.

190

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

This is incredibly weak. It is the kind of equivocation that arises when you’re arguing a point that you haven’t really thought through and that you don’t really believe.

If it is their inability to procreate that stands in the way of two men marrying, then it is the ability to procreate that is the essential condition of marriage.

And if it is the ability to procreate that is the essential condition of marriage, then barren women and infertile men should be denied marriage licenses.[/quote]

Weak? It’s perfectly sound.

It isn’t the inability of a particular homosexual couple to procreate. It’s that the homosexual act isn’t procreative at all!

Self-evident. And the fact that this didn’t jump out at you before hitting submit, should cause you to rethink who hasn’t thought this through.[/quote]

For a barren woman, the sexual act isn’t procreative at all either.

This can go on ad infinitum.

By the way, how about a woman in her 80s getting married? Much like gay men, she belongs to a class of people who are by definition unable to procreate–post-menopausal women. Surely she shouldn’t be allowed to marry.[/quote]

Of course she should. Everyone will notice, including the young men and women, the old MALE and FEMALE, married. Reinforcing the model for the reproductive sexes, male and female, to marry.
[/quote]

So we can make exceptions to the rule so long as it has some social benefit?

191

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

This is incredibly weak. It is the kind of equivocation that arises when you’re arguing a point that you haven’t really thought through and that you don’t really believe.

If it is their inability to procreate that stands in the way of two men marrying, then it is the ability to procreate that is the essential condition of marriage.

And if it is the ability to procreate that is the essential condition of marriage, then barren women and infertile men should be denied marriage licenses.[/quote]

Weak? It’s perfectly sound.

It isn’t the inability of a particular homosexual couple to procreate. It’s that the homosexual act isn’t procreative at all!

Self-evident. And the fact that this didn’t jump out at you before hitting submit, should cause you to rethink who hasn’t thought this through.[/quote]

For a barren woman, the sexual act isn’t procreative at all either.

This can go on ad infinitum.

By the way, how about a woman in her 80s getting married? Much like gay men, she belongs to a class of people who are by definition unable to procreate–post-menopausal women. Surely she shouldn’t be allowed to marry.[/quote]

Of course she should. Everyone will notice, including the young men and women, the old MALE and FEMALE, married. Reinforcing the model for the reproductive sexes, male and female, to marry.
[/quote]

So we can make exceptions to the rule so long as it has some social benefit?[/quote]

To what rule?

My rule is the ordering of the reproductive sexes into marriage…

192

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
As an aside, no one believes that your opposition to gay marriage has anything to do with a consideration for the feelings of the 25 people in the country who’d like to marry a group of people. No one.[/quote]

Actually over the last decade there has been an enormous rise in polyamorous organisations pushing for just that.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/the-mainstreaming-of-polyamory/[/quote]

I would have to see some harder evidence to believe that there are half a million palyamorous families (or whatever you call them). But even that would be far less than 1% of the population.

But yes, 25 was an exaggeration.[/quote]

[quote] You earlier:
To elevate one union of consenting adults above another–and the right to marry is surely an elevation–is unequal and unjust.[/quote]

But you do support their right to marry?
[/quote]

No, I don’t. There are reasons for this, but the red line is arbitrary in the end, as it is with you.

Edit: I should have said one union of two adults. Because while I believe gay couples are very easily analogous to straight couples, the same cannot be said of a group of five people.

193

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

This is incredibly weak. It is the kind of equivocation that arises when you’re arguing a point that you haven’t really thought through and that you don’t really believe.

If it is their inability to procreate that stands in the way of two men marrying, then it is the ability to procreate that is the essential condition of marriage.

And if it is the ability to procreate that is the essential condition of marriage, then barren women and infertile men should be denied marriage licenses.[/quote]

Weak? It’s perfectly sound.

It isn’t the inability of a particular homosexual couple to procreate. It’s that the homosexual act isn’t procreative at all!

Self-evident. And the fact that this didn’t jump out at you before hitting submit, should cause you to rethink who hasn’t thought this through.[/quote]

For a barren woman, the sexual act isn’t procreative at all either.

This can go on ad infinitum.

By the way, how about a woman in her 80s getting married? Much like gay men, she belongs to a class of people who are by definition unable to procreate–post-menopausal women. Surely she shouldn’t be allowed to marry.[/quote]

Of course she should. Everyone will notice, including the young men and women, the old MALE and FEMALE, married. Reinforcing the model for the reproductive sexes, male and female, to marry.
[/quote]

So we can make exceptions to the rule so long as it has some social benefit?[/quote]

To what rule?

My rule is the ordering of the reproductive sexes into marriage…

[/quote]

…because of procreation.

There is no need to dance around the edges of the issue. If procreation is the aim, then procreation is the aim. Those who can’t procreate can’t marry. Simple as that. It is ludicrous to aver that a barren woman should be excused from this rule because she’ll be looked up to by kids. There are certainly enough marries couples in the world for kids to look up to. And it’s an element you introduced so as to contort your position to include people who you–ARBITRARILY–wish to include in your group.

194

[quote]smh23 wrote:

There are reasons for this, but the red line is arbitrary in the end, as it is with you.[/quote]

You know you’re being dishonest. You know my position isn’t arbitrary. You know my position reflects the brute facts of nature, and the WIDESPREAD impact on society and humanity, as a whole, that those facts have. Male and female, smh. Opposite sexes, aka the reproductive unit of our kind. To call my position ‘arbitrary’ is an act of being willfully dense. To do so it to deny natural reality.

195

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

This is incredibly weak. It is the kind of equivocation that arises when you’re arguing a point that you haven’t really thought through and that you don’t really believe.

If it is their inability to procreate that stands in the way of two men marrying, then it is the ability to procreate that is the essential condition of marriage.

And if it is the ability to procreate that is the essential condition of marriage, then barren women and infertile men should be denied marriage licenses.[/quote]

Weak? It’s perfectly sound.

It isn’t the inability of a particular homosexual couple to procreate. It’s that the homosexual act isn’t procreative at all!

Self-evident. And the fact that this didn’t jump out at you before hitting submit, should cause you to rethink who hasn’t thought this through.[/quote]

For a barren woman, the sexual act isn’t procreative at all either.

This can go on ad infinitum.

By the way, how about a woman in her 80s getting married? Much like gay men, she belongs to a class of people who are by definition unable to procreate–post-menopausal women. Surely she shouldn’t be allowed to marry.[/quote]

Of course she should. Everyone will notice, including the young men and women, the old MALE and FEMALE, married. Reinforcing the model for the reproductive sexes, male and female, to marry.
[/quote]

So we can make exceptions to the rule so long as it has some social benefit?[/quote]

To what rule?

My rule is the ordering of the reproductive sexes into marriage…

[/quote]

…because of procreation.

There is no need to dance around the edges of the issue. If procreation is the aim, then procreation is the aim. Those who can’t procreate can’t marry. Simple as that. It is ludicrous to aver that a barren woman should be excused from this rule because she’ll be looked up to by kids. There are certainly enough marries couples in the world for kids to look up to. And it’s an element you introduced so as to contort your position to include people who you–ARBITRARILY–wish to include in your group.[/quote]

It isn’t arbitrary, they’re MALE and FEMALE. Members of their respective and opposite reproductive sexes. That doesn’t change. Period. Aren’t you even reading your own comments? Do you understand what you’re implying? You’re literally pretending not to understand the concept of male and female members, in order to ask silly questions for which you pretend I’m not providing consistent answers.

196

Smh, you are actually pretending that grandchildren, or other peoples grand children, aren’t seeing a married male and female…Serving my model.

And you are pretending. Because nobody could actually thinks this.

197

[quote]Sloth wrote:

It isn’t arbitrary, they’re MALE and FEMALE. Members of their respective and opposite reproductive sexes. That doesn’t change. Period. Aren’t you even reading your own comments? Do you understand what you’re implying? You’re literally pretending not to understand the concept of male and female members, in order to ask silly questions for which you pretend I’m not providing consistent answers.
[/quote]

Sloth, I’m not pretending anything and I actually think this is a good conversation.

I am arguing what I actually believe: that the parameters of marriage are arbitrary and no harm will be done to anyone on this planet by expanding them to include homosexuals. That heterosexual procreation is not an act which needs any encouragement, least of all by government. I see marriage and procreation as entirely separate.

If I had to be honest, I would add that I see marriage itself as a fatuous anachronism, which is why I’ve never cared all that much about gay marriage in the first place, so long as the same legal benefits are given to gays in civil union.

It’s about 6 hours past bedtime. I probably won’t have power because of the hurricane, but I would like to continue this conversation when I can.

198

[quote]smh23 wrote:
That heterosexual procreation is not an act which needs any encouragement, least of all by government.[/quote]

But it does need direction into an orderly institution. Drive through a ghetto wracked by inter-generational poverty and criminality. See how many dads are present in the home. How males and females come together has an indisputable and powerful impact on society and humanity as a whole.

You folks were in our prayers this Sunday. Get prepared, stay safe.

199

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Let’s see if I’ve got this right:

Marriage should be allowed only between two people who can procreate.

Yes?[/quote]

Already dealt with this.[/quote]

They have already dealt with issues they can not answer

200

[quote]smh23 wrote:

If I had to be honest, I would add that I see marriage itself as a fatuous anachronism, which is why I’ve never cared all that much about gay marriage in the first place, so long as the same legal benefits are given to gays in civil union.[/quote]

Well, I think when reduced down to its essence, this defines the “progressive” view - they don’t think marriage is all that useful or worthwhile, and that it is an antiquated waste of time, but if society insists on having it, society can’t leave certain relationships out.

And that is fine, as far as it fgoes - then the “progressive” answer is to do away with state-sanctioned marriage, because there is no logical way to recognize every alternative, consenting adult relationships (and it is only just if we do). That’s fine, I disagree with that entire line of thinking, but I wish more “progressives” would just come and say it.

That said, one other note about marriage being about reproduction - you keep insisting that if marriage was about reproduction, the infertile should not be allowed to get married. Several things - Sloth has already dealt with the idea of the reinforcing norm, and there is nothing for me to add. Second, infertility is not static - there are people who wind up having children who previously though they could not.

Moreover, there are people who no longer can have children (perhaps by their own decision), but we want them to stay married because they are parents of previously-born children. It would be quite dumb to require “proof” of infertility because of these two factors. Marriage serves purposes outside of and in addition to child-bearing (i.e., fertility).

Not the least of which is also discouraging married people from going out and producing children outside the marriage - a bad thing. Imagine a scenario where a man and woman are married, and the woman becomes barren. Even though this coupling can’t produce children, society has an affirmative interest in deterring the otherwise-fertile man from straying outside the marriage and having children with other people. Marriage helps with that.

Thus, marriage is not only designed to order procreation within the marriage, it is designed to order procreation outside of the marriage. Both functions are crucial, and in addition to all the other reasons presented, this is why your scenario of “infertile couples shouldn’t be able to marry” makes no sense.

BTW, stay safe up there, wherever ye be.

EDIT: underlined to fix typo.