[quote]Sloth wrote:
Because his statement suggests that society has no interest in supporting any form of state recognized marriage.[/quote]
There certainly is interest, since people clearly want marriage benefits. That’s not what I’m saying.
The question I am ask is, do marriage benefits have any effect on people getting married and/or having children?
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[lengthy non-sequitur]. [/quote]
Sorry, guy - I’m not interested in lengthy non-sequiturs about the topic. Gay marriage proponents don’t fall on the side of reason, they fall on the side of emotion…and race isn’t relevant or comparable: blacks in the civil rights era were combatting the problem of white supremacy holding them down from equal participation in a free society, and no serious person believes that gays are suffering at the hands of “heterosexual supremacy”.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]undoredo wrote:
[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]
Basically.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[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?
[/quote]
So, you’re not trying to justify homosexual marriage then. Ok.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Because his statement suggests that society has no interest in supporting any form of state recognized marriage.[/quote]
There certainly is interest, since people clearly want marriage benefits. That’s not what I’m saying.
The question I am ask is, do marriage benefits have any effect on people getting married and/or having children?
[/quote]
Well, if people want them, that suggests incentive.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
This is all true.
It is also true for opponents of gay marriage.
The simple fact is that no great threats to our people or society are posed either way. Any assertion to the contrary is egregious hyperbole. You may aver all you’d like that marriage is about procreation, but you’re not going to convince anyone–including yourself–that letting gays get hitched is going to have any kind of deleterious effect on anybody else. New York State is unchanged in almost every way since the legalization of gay marriage–save for the fact that gay marriage is now legal.[/quote]
Let’s take what you said is true - that is precisely the problem. Gay marriage does nothing - it has no impact - on the terrible state of marriage today. But we are not (and should not) be content with the current state of marriage - it is a shambles. So, if we take what you say to be true - that gay marriage won’t hurt the status quo - that still doesn’t help you, because the status quo isn’t good.
Any new public policy enacted in connection with marriage needs to strengthen, improve nd/or reverse the damage done to the institution. Gay marriage does none of those things, even if we take your “it doesn’t impact the status quo” position as true.
And you continue to fall back on this idea the test for a law should be, “hey, if it doesn’t really hurt anybody, it should be law.” I think a law requiring everyone to refer to me in public as “The Right Honorable Thunderbolt23, His Glory and Highest Majesty” would be great for my self-esteem, and it doesn’t hurt anyone - they just have to use those extra words when talking to me (and it isn’t a real title that bestows any benefits, so it doesn’t run afoul of the constitution).
Under your theory, my desire to have the law require everyone to call me that should be the law of the land, even though it solves no public problems, as it (1) doesn’t bother the status quo, (2) fulfills my desire to feel better about myself, and (3) doesn’t require anything (much) of the rest of society.
So, you support my law requiring everyone to call me that?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[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?
[/quote]
So, you’re not trying to justify homosexual marriage then. Ok.
[/quote]
Well I’m saying heterosexual marriage as public policy is equally unneccessary as homosexual marriage. If that’s the case (unless you can prove otherwise), why not legislate gay marriage as people want it to as per what modern polls/studies are suggesting?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Because his statement suggests that society has no interest in supporting any form of state recognized marriage.[/quote]
There certainly is interest, since people clearly want marriage benefits. That’s not what I’m saying.
The question I am ask is, do marriage benefits have any effect on people getting married and/or having children?
[/quote]
Well, if people want them, that suggests incentive.
[/quote]
Nope, that’s a logical fallacy. You’d have to see how people would react in the absence of these benefits being available to truly understand their incentives. At the very least, ask people who are married (and in a stable happy marriage) if they still would have tied the knot in the absence of benefits.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[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?
[/quote]
So, you’re not trying to justify homosexual marriage then. Ok.
[/quote]
Well I’m saying heterosexual marriage as public policy is equally unneccessary…[/quote]
No, you’re pretending to say that. You already gave away the argument. Remember? Heterosexuals are going to keep getting it on and spitting out babies as an inherent aspect of heterosexuals getting it on. Time to start arguing honestly, you already gave this angle away.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Because his statement suggests that society has no interest in supporting any form of state recognized marriage.[/quote]
There certainly is interest, since people clearly want marriage benefits. That’s not what I’m saying.
The question I am ask is, do marriage benefits have any effect on people getting married and/or having children?
[/quote]
Well, if people want them, that suggests incentive.
[/quote]
Nope, that’s a logical fallacy. You’d have to see how people would react in the absence of these benefits being available to truly understand their incentives. At the very least, ask people who are married (and in a stable happy marriage) if they still would have tied the knot in the absence of benefits.
[/quote]
So you don’t think homosexuals need recognition, special privileges, and so on from the government.
Raj, just drop this angle. It’s silly. You started to lay it out, but then turned around and trampled right through it.
It’s not necessary, but homosexuals need it…
Neither, homo or hetero marriage, has society/humanity wide implications…Reducing them to some equivalent status…Yet, as you say, heteros are inherently going to birth babies in the absence or presence of marriage.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[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?
[/quote]
So, you’re not trying to justify homosexual marriage then. Ok.
[/quote]
Well I’m saying heterosexual marriage as public policy is equally unneccessary…[/quote]
No, you’re pretending to say that. You already gave away the argument. Remember? Heterosexuals are going to keep getting it on and spitting out babies as an inherent aspect of heterosexuals getting it on. Time to start arguing honestly, you already gave this angle away.
[/quote]
Not pretending at all. I think marriage rates are not significantly effected by state recognition and that it starts and stop with recognizing that men and women were designed to play specific roles in society.
Giving females such great economic opportunity combined with birth control and abortion has removed all natural consequences from cheating. In the past female cheaters would become outcasts and suffer great financial hardship.
If you get rid of female opportunity and push them towards more traditional roles, marriage and divorce rate problems will take care of themselves. Women will lose incentive to cheat, men will have little to no options for cheating and society will be more stable overall.
State recognition is a minor influence at best.
Sloth–should gays be barred from adopting? And should a man in a gay relationship be barred from raising/splitting care for a child that he fathered biologically in a previous or concurrent heterosexual relationship?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Raj, just drop this angle. It’s silly. You started to lay it out, but then turned around and trampled right through it.
It’s not necessary, but homosexuals need it…
Neither, homo or hetero marriage, has society/humanity wide implications…Reducing them to some equivalent status…Yet, as you say, heteros are inherently going to birth babies in the absence or presence of marriage.
[/quote]
I’m saying benefits are unnecessary and it’s only policy to make society happy. Given that, homosexual and heterosexual marriage are on the same level.
If you’re going to legislate on public want vs public need (as could be argued the case for marriage) then you are obligated to legislate gay marriage into law.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Sloth–should gays be barred from adopting?[/quote]
Yes.
No. Though the hetero sexual mother should be favored in custody considerations.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Sloth–should gays be barred from adopting?[/quote]
Yes.
No. Though the hetero sexual mother should be favored in custody considerations.
[/quote]
Should a single parent be disallowed to adopt?
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Sloth–should gays be barred from adopting?[/quote]
Yes.
No. Though the hetero sexual mother should be favored in custody considerations.
[/quote]
Should a single parent be disallowed to adopt?[/quote]
It should be avoided as much as possible.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Anybody prove ‘gay marriage’ is the same as a marriage between man and woman? I haven’t seen it. If you are claiming it deserves the same status, you should first prove it’s the same thing. Otherwise you don’t really have an argument.[/quote]
If homosexual couples are allowed to marry they will have:
(1) the same rights and duties with respect to each other that straight couples have;
(2) the same rights and duties with respect to their children that straight couples have;
(3) the same rights and duties with respect to the outside world that straight couples have.
I don’t see your point or how you think a gay marriage will be legally any different from a straight marriage in any material way.
[/quote]
All I am asking for is proof that it’s the same thing. This has not been done, which means that the whole argument that it is without proof, means that it isn’t.
There are other ways to get what you want, you don’t have to make something that isn’t like something else, like that something.
And if it were such a private issue, why is it, we keep hearing about it?
I am not sure how to describe the convoluted thinking that goes along with requiring someone to consider a thing that is not like another thing, like that thing anyway, and then at the same time say, it’s private and nobody’s business.
Apparently it’s everybody’s business because it keeps coming up. If it’s truly just a private issue, than make it so and quit bothering people with it…
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Anybody prove ‘gay marriage’ is the same as a marriage between man and woman? I haven’t seen it. If you are claiming it deserves the same status, you should first prove it’s the same thing. Otherwise you don’t really have an argument.[/quote]
If homosexual couples are allowed to marry they will have:
(1) the same rights and duties with respect to each other that straight couples have;
(2) the same rights and duties with respect to their children that straight couples have;
(3) the same rights and duties with respect to the outside world that straight couples have.
I don’t see your point or how you think a gay marriage will be legally any different from a straight marriage in any material way.
[/quote]
why do straight couples have such rights and duties in the first place ?
also, my relationship is neither a gay relationship nor a straight relationship.
I’m in an open-but-comitted, polyamorous relationship with 1+ bisexual girl(s).
Why can’t i have the same rights and duties ?
[/quote]
Good point.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Anybody prove ‘gay marriage’ is the same as a marriage between man and woman? I haven’t seen it. If you are claiming it deserves the same status, you should first prove it’s the same thing. Otherwise you don’t really have an argument.[/quote]
If homosexual couples are allowed to marry they will have:
(1) the same rights and duties with respect to each other that straight couples have;
(2) the same rights and duties with respect to their children that straight couples have;
(3) the same rights and duties with respect to the outside world that straight couples have.
I don’t see your point or how you think a gay marriage will be legally any different from a straight marriage in any material way.
[/quote]
All I am asking for is proof that it’s the same thing. This has not been done, which means that the whole argument that it is without proof, means that it isn’t.
There are other ways to get what you want, you don’t have to make something that isn’t like something else, like that something.
And if it were such a private issue, why is it, we keep hearing about it?
I am not sure how to describe the convoluted thinking that goes along with requiring someone to consider a thing that is not like another thing, like that thing anyway, and then at the same time say, it’s private and nobody’s business.
Apparently it’s everybody’s business because it keeps coming up. If it’s truly just a private issue, than make it so and quit bothering people with it…[/quote]
I proved its exactly the same thing:
If homosexual couples are allowed to marry they will have:
(1) the same rights and duties with respect to each other that straight couples have;
(2) the same rights and duties with respect to their children that straight couples have;
(3) the same rights and duties with respect to the outside world that straight couples have.
How do you think a homosexual marriage will be legally or materially any different from a heterosexual marriage?
Also, and more importantly, how will allowing homosexual’s to marry negatively affect you and your family in any way?