[quote]Sloth wrote:
It isn’t immaterial. Infertility/sterility of specific couple does not change the desired male/female coupling, within the confines of marriage, taking place. Exceptions do not change reproductive reality. A male and female is the natural reproductive unit. And we want those couplings seen within marriage.
And it isn’t a fair analogy. Banning same sex couples from state recognized marriage is not like banning interracial couples at all. Society as a whole has a vested interest in how the coupling of heterosexuals takes place, period. No such interest with homosexuals. [/quote]
We disagree on this. And I doubt anything can be said to get either of us to change our minds so I’ll leave it at that. But its been a good, spirited discussion, thank you for that.[/quote]
Hey, I appreciate you presenting your side, and in the manner in which you did it. And yeah, I suppose we’re so far down the road on this thread, that we’re just going to end up starting over again on points already made.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
It isn’t immaterial. Infertility/sterility of specific couple does not change the desired male/female coupling, within the confines of marriage, taking place. Exceptions do not change reproductive reality. A male and female is the natural reproductive unit. And we want those couplings seen within marriage.
And it isn’t a fair analogy. Banning same sex couples from state recognized marriage is not like banning interracial couples at all. Society as a whole has a vested interest in how the coupling of heterosexuals takes place, period. No such interest with homosexuals. [/quote]
We disagree on this. And I doubt anything can be said to get either of us to change our minds so I’ll leave it at that. But its been a good, spirited discussion, thank you for that.[/quote]
Hey, I appreciate you presenting your side, and in the manner in which you did it. [/quote]
If you love him so much, why don’t you guys just get married?
That was an asinine way of saying that, yes, the arguments have been made and, while nobody’s mind seems to have been changed, I don’t think this thread was as useless and futile as some around here. Good talk chaps.
Meh, the anti-gay marriage argument is built on the unproven premise that marriage as public policy is necessary at all. That people will consciously stop coupling and reproducing in the absence of state-recognition and benefits.
When pressed for evidence the premise they will respond with something like “Well why do you think every country has state recognition of heterosexual marriage?!?!” That’s not evidence.
So don’t bother with their argument until they can prove heterosexual marriage is actually necessary for repopulating society.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Meh, the anti-gay marriage argument is built on the unproven premise that marriage as public policy is necessary at all. That people will consciously stop coupling and reproducing in the absence of state-recognition and benefits.
[/quote]
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Meh, the anti-gay marriage argument is built on the unproven premise that marriage as public policy is necessary at all. That people will consciously stop coupling and reproducing in the absence of state-recognition and benefits.
[/quote]
That’s certainly not the argument in this thread.
[/quote]
Sure it is.
Gay marriage = therapeutic
Heterosexual marriage = integral for encouraging people to couple and reproduce. That’s why it’s put on a pedestal above other relationships.
In another thread (not sure if you said it here) you told me in the absence of marriage as public policy only the religious would continue to marry while marriage rates would plummet amongst the rest. Society would essentially crumble.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Meh, the anti-gay marriage argument is built on the unproven premise that marriage as public policy is necessary at all. That people will consciously stop coupling and reproducing in the absence of state-recognition and benefits.
[/quote]
That’s certainly not the argument in this thread.
[/quote]
Sure it is.
Gay marriage = therapeutic
Heterosexual marriage = integral for encouraging people to couple and reproduce. That’s why it’s put on a pedestal above other relationships.
[/quote]
Nope. In fact, you almost stumble into what our argument actually is by saying that heterosexuals are going to reproduce, regardless. Also, the first sentence of your first statement, the one I originally responded to, suggests that there is certainly no necessity in recognizing homosexual marriages, by the way.
Nope. In fact, you almost stumble into what our argument actually is by saying that heterosexuals are going to reproduce, regardless. Also, the first sentence of your first statement, the one I originally responded to, suggests that there is certainly no necessity in recognizing homosexual marriages, by the way.
[/quote]
It’s unproven that state recognized marriage is needed at all. That hetero and homo recognized marriage are both therapeutic in nature and therefore you have no real reason to support any form of state recognized marriage.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Meh, the anti-gay marriage argument is built on the unproven premise that marriage as public policy is necessary at all. That people will consciously stop coupling and reproducing in the absence of state-recognition and benefits.
When pressed for evidence the premise they will respond with something like “Well why do you think every country has state recognition of heterosexual marriage?!?!” That’s not evidence.
So don’t bother with their argument until they can prove heterosexual marriage is actually necessary for repopulating society.
[/quote]
Second and fifth sentences above are blatant misrepresentations. The argument against gay marriage discussed the most in this thread is based on heterosexual marriage being the environment that is best for creating future generations of responsible and productive people who will help hold society together (on average, people who grow up in single-parent households will be less responsible and less productive – bear in mind I said “on average”); infertile heterosexual marriage as being a model for and/or incidental variation of fertile heterosexual marriage; and homosexual marriage as not providing any comparable social benefit that justifies comparable legal privileges.
Some people have disagreed with that argument (which some time ago would have seemed astounding enough in itself), but without resorting to misrepresentation.
Nope. In fact, you almost stumble into what our argument actually is by saying that heterosexuals are going to reproduce, regardless. Also, the first sentence of your first statement, the one I originally responded to, suggests that there is certainly no necessity in recognizing homosexual marriages, by the way.
[/quote]
It’s unproven that state recognized marriage is needed at all. That hetero and homo recognized marriage are both therapeutic in nature and therefore you have no real reason to support any form of state recognized marriage.[/quote]
Sorry, I won’t accept that you actually believe this.
But first, yes I agree the state/society has zero interest in marrying homosexuals.
Secondly, you’ve already made the case as to why the state/society would have an interest in promoting heterosexual marriage. Because, as you say, heteros are still going to keep on having kids as an inherent aspect of their getting it on. The public interest is in under what circumstances.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Meh, the anti-gay marriage argument is built on the unproven premise that marriage as public policy is necessary at all. That people will consciously stop coupling and reproducing in the absence of state-recognition and benefits.
When pressed for evidence the premise they will respond with something like “Well why do you think every country has state recognition of heterosexual marriage?!?!” That’s not evidence.
So don’t bother with their argument until they can prove heterosexual marriage is actually necessary for repopulating society.
[/quote]
Second and fifth sentences above are blatant misrepresentations. The argument against gay marriage discussed the most in this thread is based on heterosexual marriage being the environment that is best for creating future generations of responsible and productive people who will help hold society together (on average, people who grow up in single-parent households will be less responsible and less productive – bear in mind I said “on average”); infertile heterosexual marriage as being a model for and/or incidental variation of fertile heterosexual marriage; and homosexual marriage as not providing any comparable social benefit that justifies comparable legal privileges.
Some people have disagreed with that argument (which some time ago would have seemed astounding enough in itself), but without resorting to misrepresentation.[/quote]
[quote]therajraj wrote:
It’s unproven that state recognized marriage is needed at all. That hetero and homo recognized marriage are both therapeutic in nature and therefore you have no real reason to support any form of state recognized marriage.[/quote]
Sorry, I won’t accept that you actually believe this.
[/quote]
Sloth, that particular sentence reminds me of my late grandfather. He wouldn’t have believed it (that raj actually believes his statement above), either. I think I might be happier if I didn’t believe it. Can you help me not believe it?
I said I was getting out of here, and now I’m back.
Sloth–the argument you’ve been making throughout this thread is essentially that gay marriage is unnecessary. That is, that marriage is a specific institution with a specific aim and benefit and that homosexual relationships do not need/cannot take advantage of this specific benefit and should therefore not be granted marriage licenses.
This is very different from saying that gay marriage is a threat to society or immoral or a legitimization of a disgusting/abhorrent lifestyle (I’m not going to attach the word “choice” to lifestyle because we all know that in most cases that is complete bullshit).
Would you say you don’t subscribe to the latter belief?
[quote]therajraj wrote:
It’s unproven that state recognized marriage is needed at all. That hetero and homo recognized marriage are both therapeutic in nature and therefore you have no real reason to support any form of state recognized marriage.[/quote]
Sorry, I won’t accept that you actually believe this.
[/quote]
Sloth, that particular sentence reminds me of my late grandfather. He wouldn’t have believed it (that raj actually believes his statement above), either. I think I might be happier if I didn’t believe it. Can you help me not believe it?
[/quote]
Because his statement suggests that society has no interest in supporting any form of state recognized marriage. Yet, earlier, he said heterosexuals would keep on squeezing out babies. Well, there’s your public interest. You can’t on one-hand reduce them to the same status, by saying both forms of marriage are simply therapeutic, implying there isn’t a societal wide interest for either…and then turn around and remind us that heterosexuality has a very potent and inherent aspect with societal wide implications…
[quote]smh23 wrote:
I said I was getting out of here, and now I’m back.
Sloth–the argument you’ve been making throughout this thread is essentially that gay marriage is unnecessary. That is, that marriage is a specific institution with a specific aim and benefit and that homosexual relationships do not need/cannot take advantage of this specific benefit and should therefore not be granted marriage licenses.
This is very different from saying that gay marriage is a threat to society or immoral or a legitimization of a disgusting/abhorrent lifestyle (I’m not going to attach the word “choice” to lifestyle because we all know that in most cases that is complete bullshit).
Would you say you don’t subscribe to the latter belief?[/quote]
(The argument in the first paragraph does not logically stand nor fall based on agreement or disagreement as to whether gay sexual activity is a bad thing in and of itself. The proposition that gay sexual activity is a bad thing in and of itself would be a separate, independent argument against gay marriage.)
[quote]therajraj wrote:
It’s unproven that state recognized marriage is needed at all. That hetero and homo recognized marriage are both therapeutic in nature and therefore you have no real reason to support any form of state recognized marriage.[/quote]
Sorry, I won’t accept that you actually believe this.
[/quote]
Sloth, that particular sentence reminds me of my late grandfather. He wouldn’t have believed it (that raj actually believes his statement above), either. I think I might be happier if I didn’t believe it. Can you help me not believe it?
[/quote]
Because his statement suggests that society has no interest in supporting any form of state recognized marriage. Yet, earlier, he said heterosexuals would keep on squeezing out babies. Well, there’s your public interest. You can’t on one-hand reduce them to the same status, by saying both forms of marriage are simply therapeutic, implying there isn’t a societal wide interest for either…and then turn around and remind us that heterosexuality has a very potent and inherent aspect with societal wide implications… [/quote]
You are implying that he has to realize that increasing the proportion of children conceived out of wedlock would be a significantly bad thing. My experience from listening to a variety of grownup, legally-competent people talk makes me think that he does not necessarily have to realize that.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
I said I was getting out of here, and now I’m back.
Sloth–the argument you’ve been making throughout this thread is essentially that gay marriage is unnecessary. That is, that marriage is a specific institution with a specific aim and benefit and that homosexual relationships do not need/cannot take advantage of this specific benefit and should therefore not be granted marriage licenses.
This is very different from saying that gay marriage is a threat to society or immoral or a legitimization of a disgusting/abhorrent lifestyle (I’m not going to attach the word “choice” to lifestyle because we all know that in most cases that is complete bullshit).
Would you say you don’t subscribe to the latter belief?[/quote]
(The argument in the first paragraph does not logically stand nor fall based on agreement or disagreement as to whether gay sexual activity is a bad thing in and of itself. The proposition that gay sexual activity is a bad thing in and of itself would be a separate, independent argument against gay marriage.)[/quote]
I understand that, I’m wondering if Sloth espouses the latter argument as well as the former.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
It’s unproven that state recognized marriage is needed at all. That hetero and homo recognized marriage are both therapeutic in nature and therefore you have no real reason to support any form of state recognized marriage.[/quote]
Sorry, I won’t accept that you actually believe this.
[/quote]
Sloth, that particular sentence reminds me of my late grandfather. He wouldn’t have believed it (that raj actually believes his statement above), either. I think I might be happier if I didn’t believe it. Can you help me not believe it?
[/quote]
Because his statement suggests that society has no interest in supporting any form of state recognized marriage. Yet, earlier, he said heterosexuals would keep on squeezing out babies. Well, there’s your public interest. You can’t on one-hand reduce them to the same status, by saying both forms of marriage are simply therapeutic, implying there isn’t a societal wide interest for either…and then turn around and remind us that heterosexuality has a very potent and inherent aspect with societal wide implications… [/quote]
You are implying that he has to realize that increasing the proportion of children conceived out of wedlock would be a significantly bad thing. My experience from listening to a variety of grownup, legally-competent people talk makes me think that he does not necessarily have to realize that.
[/quote]
[quote]undoredo wrote:
Second and fifth sentences above are blatant misrepresentations. The argument against gay marriage discussed the most in this thread is based on heterosexual marriage being the environment that is best for creating future generations of responsible and productive people who will help hold society together (on average, people who grow up in single-parent households will be less responsible and less productive – bear in mind I said “on average”); infertile heterosexual marriage as being a model for and/or incidental variation of fertile heterosexual marriage; and homosexual marriage as not providing any comparable social benefit that justifies comparable legal privileges.
[/quote]
One must justify giving out benefits to people at all for getting married. If people still get married just as often and have kid just as often without the presence of benefits why waste precious tax dollars doling out these benefits?