Gay Marriage

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
161

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
This is the sixth page and nobody has explained to me what critical and irreplaceable aspect homosexual couplings has inherent to itself. We are talking about the state acting in a positive manner, reaching out into society, with all it’s imaginative human relationships, and picking out a whopping one other to put up on a pedestal by recognizing it, titling it, ordering it, and privileging it. Nobody has actually justified such heavy-handed positive action from the state. Nobody has pointed to the critical and irreplaceable function of this relationship to society and humanity as a whole.[/quote]

Why are hospital visitation rights included in marriage?[/quote]

In order to make it more attractive and orderly for the reproductive sexes to order their couplings within marriage. Because, you know, reproduction is an inherent aspect of their coupling…

If you want to expand hospital visitation rights, then argue for it outside of the homosexual marriage argument. Argue it for friends, business associates, or for whoever the patient has had designated as a visitor through arrangements made prior to the hospitalization event.[/quote]

So do you have no problem granting them hospital visitation rights? If you are okay with that, then what individual part of government marriage are you against them having besides the name, assuming all parts could be applied for separately.[/quote]

Anything not applicable to a friendship, for instance.[/quote]

What is 1 specific example[/quote]

Uh, I have no problem with a person being able to grant hospital visitation rights to people. But homosexuals wouldn’t have any different avenue than what’s available to a person granting the same status to a friend.

[/quote]

So you’re okay with them getting all the same privileges as long as they have to do more paperwork to obtain it?[/quote]

Same arrangements as friends can make, sure.[/quote]

Well I don’t see what your big objection to reducing paperwork would be then, it benefits both sides. I assumed you had a better reason for being against the issue than to simply make gays do more paperwork.

162

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

Well I don’t see what your big objection to reducing paperwork would be then, it benefits both sides. I assumed you had a better reason for being against the issue than to simply make gays do more paperwork.[/quote]

Right…

Um, ok then…

Anyone else have a contribution?

163

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

Well I don’t see what your big objection to reducing paperwork would be then, it benefits both sides. I assumed you had a better reason for being against the issue than to simply make gays do more paperwork.[/quote]

Right…

Um, ok then…

Anyone else have a contribution?[/quote]

I’ve yet to see a single individual item you object to. So far you are simply against definitions of words, so whats your contribution?

164

Gay marriage is obvious deviltry.

Gays are a result of Satan interfering in God’s work. They must NOT be recognized within the sanctity of marriage.

165

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

Well I don’t see what your big objection to reducing paperwork would be then, it benefits both sides. I assumed you had a better reason for being against the issue than to simply make gays do more paperwork.[/quote]

Right…

Um, ok then…

Anyone else have a contribution?[/quote]

I’ve yet to see a single individual item you object to. So far you are simply against definitions of words, so whats your contribution?[/quote]

What? You sound as confused and in search of an argument as pitt. What the heck do you believe your point is, because I’m absolutely friggen lost. Somehow this confusing exchange started when I said there MIGHT be an argument for individuals to have a clearer or easier path to assign someone (not based on a sexual relationship) as a ‘visitor’ should they ever be hospitalized. And YOU are welcome to make it somewhere else. Next you asked me what ‘arrangements’ should homosexuals be able to make with each other. I said, the same as any pair of friends would be able to. Like, transferring property through as a gift or through some contractual exchange. I just gave away a 1998 S-10 to a young vet who needed a vehicle. Signed it right over. Do you not have friends? Why am I having to describe how friends ‘get things done?’ I’m completely lost. Seriously, I’m getting real close to just ignoring you in this thread, as I’ve done others. Get to a point or an actual question. I’m not here to divine your arguments.

166

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

Well I don’t see what your big objection to reducing paperwork would be then, it benefits both sides. I assumed you had a better reason for being against the issue than to simply make gays do more paperwork.[/quote]

Right…

Um, ok then…

Anyone else have a contribution?[/quote]

I’ve yet to see a single individual item you object to. So far you are simply against definitions of words, so whats your contribution?[/quote]

What? You sound as confused and in search of an argument as pitt. What the heck do you believe your point is, because I’m absolutely friggen lost. Somehow this confusing exchange started when I said there MIGHT be an argument for individuals to have a clearer or easier path to assign someone (not based on a sexual relationship) as a ‘visitor’ should they ever be hospitalized. And YOU are welcome to make it somewhere else. Next you asked me what ‘arrangements’ should homosexuals be able to make with each other. I said, the same as any pair of friends would be able to. Like, transferring property through as a gift or through some contractual exchange. I just gave away a 1998 S-10 to a young vet who needed a vehicle. Signed it right over. Do you not have friends? Why am I having to describe how friends ‘get things done?’ I’m completely lost. Seriously, I’m getting real close to just ignoring you in this thread, as I’ve done others. Get to a point or an actual question. I’m not here to divine your arguments.[/quote]

What does government recognized marriage provide that a series of contracts with friends does not?

167

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

Well I don’t see what your big objection to reducing paperwork would be then, it benefits both sides. I assumed you had a better reason for being against the issue than to simply make gays do more paperwork.[/quote]

Right…

Um, ok then…

Anyone else have a contribution?[/quote]

I’ve yet to see a single individual item you object to. So far you are simply against definitions of words, so whats your contribution?[/quote]

What? You sound as confused and in search of an argument as pitt. What the heck do you believe your point is, because I’m absolutely friggen lost. Somehow this confusing exchange started when I said there MIGHT be an argument for individuals to have a clearer or easier path to assign someone (not based on a sexual relationship) as a ‘visitor’ should they ever be hospitalized. And YOU are welcome to make it somewhere else. Next you asked me what ‘arrangements’ should homosexuals be able to make with each other. I said, the same as any pair of friends would be able to. Like, transferring property through as a gift or through some contractual exchange. I just gave away a 1998 S-10 to a young vet who needed a vehicle. Signed it right over. Do you not have friends? Why am I having to describe how friends ‘get things done?’ I’m completely lost. Seriously, I’m getting real close to just ignoring you in this thread, as I’ve done others. Get to a point or an actual question. I’m not here to divine your arguments.[/quote]

What does government recognized marriage provide that a series of contracts with friends does not?[/quote]

And lastly, so you can do it too…

168

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

Well I don’t see what your big objection to reducing paperwork would be then, it benefits both sides. I assumed you had a better reason for being against the issue than to simply make gays do more paperwork.[/quote]

Right…

Um, ok then…

Anyone else have a contribution?[/quote]

I’ve yet to see a single individual item you object to. So far you are simply against definitions of words, so whats your contribution?[/quote]

What? You sound as confused and in search of an argument as pitt. What the heck do you believe your point is, because I’m absolutely friggen lost. Somehow this confusing exchange started when I said there MIGHT be an argument for individuals to have a clearer or easier path to assign someone (not based on a sexual relationship) as a ‘visitor’ should they ever be hospitalized. And YOU are welcome to make it somewhere else. Next you asked me what ‘arrangements’ should homosexuals be able to make with each other. I said, the same as any pair of friends would be able to. Like, transferring property through as a gift or through some contractual exchange. I just gave away a 1998 S-10 to a young vet who needed a vehicle. Signed it right over. Do you not have friends? Why am I having to describe how friends ‘get things done?’ I’m completely lost. Seriously, I’m getting real close to just ignoring you in this thread, as I’ve done others. Get to a point or an actual question. I’m not here to divine your arguments.[/quote]

What does government recognized marriage provide that a series of contracts with friends does not?[/quote]

And lastly, so you can do it too…

[/quote]

Yes I have seen those pages before. Now you pick 1 item on those lists which 2 friends/pals/roommates are unable to obtain currently and you object to legislation made for them to obtain it. I have no problem with any items on that list, which is why I’m asking if you do.

169

Copied from the links.

Custodial rights to children, shared property, child support, and alimony after divorce

Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can’t force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage.

Receiving crime victims’ recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime.

Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.

Receiving veterans’ and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.

Receiving public assistance benefits.

And so on. Are we arriving at a point here soon? I’m very close to ignoring you at least for the duration of the thread.

If YOU think hospital visitation arrangements need to be strengthened for non-spouses, you make the argument.

170

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]nickj_777 wrote:
@ Sloth

Sorry but I have been curious what does your avatar mean? It is very Salvadore Dhali-esk and creepy as hell. [/quote]

See Kamui’s comment.

Well, I chose it because it nicely represents the fall of the West. You have the old devouring it’s youth. Contraception, abortion, embryonic stem cells, entitlements and debt (the old devouring the next generation)…etc. A graying population devouring it’s offspring for power, life, and pleasure. [/quote]I knew it. =]

171

Responding quickly to things I missed:

-When I say that homosexuals would be “forced” to be with somebody of the opposite sex, I am merely stating that to be eligible for benefits they would have to overcome their natural sex drive. Would you think it was fair if you had to have sex with your gender to receive benefits? Don’t want to do that? Well, you still have the same opportunity, so too bad.

-When I say people work better in a binary black or white thought process in my argument against recognizing polyamorous groups, I mean all people. Green light = go. Red light = stop. Yellow light = slam on brakes/speed through intersection as it turns red/hit the brakes then change your mind and go. We can’t even get judgement calls on driving right when it’s not black and white, why would questions of emotional attachment be any better? They wouldn’t.

-Already a wide range of tests exist for states far more damaging than homosexuality (for the record, not damaging IMO). Yet parents still choose to have children with Trisomy 13/18/21 for instance-do you really think that they would abort a fetus that will be homosexual if they accept conditions with far greater effects on daily living?

Moving forward:

Important question-do people in this thread believe that the state has the need to act towards heterosexual marriage in a positive manner? Why should we deem this particular classification of heterosexual union so important that the state reach out and directly support it? People who aren’t married can still have children, stay together, provide stability, etc. Personally, if I had my way, especially given today’s divorce rate, there would be no benefit given for heterosexual marriage in the first place.

Another question-which is the more valuable function of a coupling: the conception of a child or raising the child? IMO raising the child sure takes a whole lot more work. We’re talking 18 years of hard work, emotions, and money vs something so easy two drunken baboons could do it. Is the minimal effort required for conception really so special that a couple receives benefits for just being capable of it?

172

Let’s see if I’ve got this right:

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

Yes?

173

[quote]CornSprint wrote:

Would you think it was fair if you had to have sex with your gender to receive benefits? Don’t want to do that?[/quote]

Of course. Since it would make absolutely no sense, not one shred of sense, for the state to try and direct people into homosexual couplings. Stop acting like the two couplings are remotely the same. Nobody honestly thinks they are.

[quote]
-When I say people work better in a binary black or white thought process in my argument against recognizing polyamorous groups, I mean all people. Green light = go. Red light = stop. Yellow light = slam on brakes/speed through intersection as it turns red/hit the brakes then change your mind and go. We can’t even get judgement calls on driving right when it’s not black and white, why would questions of emotional attachment be any better? They wouldn’t.[/quote]

You’re making marital choices for consenting adults based on your driving habits?

And many abort when conditions are found. Now, in the designer baby future that was discussed, abortion would very likely not be a necessary option. Medical science would simply correct the biological basis.

Because it wants to offer a model, which it provides incentive and order, in order to direct the coupling of the reproductive sexes. Not just for the bearing part, but also the rearing. More likely future law-abiding tax payers in adequate number, who are more likely to in turn bear and raise their own children in an intact household with both biological parents present. Versus, more likely criminal tax-consumer, who is more likely to bear children who repeat the cycle.

New rule, please? We, all of us, stop pretending heterosexual couplings don’t naturally, as an inherent character, bear an aspect that greatly impacts society…no, all of humanity…as a whole. The two relationships aren’t even remotely equivalent. These things are self-evident. For us to be asked to explain what all of us, every single one of us, already knows is disrespectful. It may seem like a good idea to bog down the other side via questions with self-evident answers, but it’s simply insulting.

174

[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.

175

[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]

And it is exactly what you concluded, no?

Marriage is focused on reproduction. Two men can’t reproduce, therefore they can’t marry. Therefore, marriage is reserved for those couples that can reproduce.

Where is there a mistake in this.

176

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[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]

And it is exactly what you concluded, no?

Marriage is focused on reproduction. Two men can’t reproduce, therefore they can’t marry. Therefore, marriage is reserved for those couples that can reproduce.

Where is there a mistake in this.[/quote]

Already answered.

177

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[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]

And it is exactly what you concluded, no?

Marriage is focused on reproduction. Two men can’t reproduce, therefore they can’t marry. Therefore, marriage is reserved for those couples that can reproduce.

Where is there a mistake in this.[/quote]

Already answered.
[/quote]

Well if it isn’t too much trouble I’d like to revisit it. Where exactly is there a mistake here?

178

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[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]

And it is exactly what you concluded, no?

Marriage is focused on reproduction. Two men can’t reproduce, therefore they can’t marry. Therefore, marriage is reserved for those couples that can reproduce.

Where is there a mistake in this.[/quote]

Already answered.
[/quote]

Well if it isn’t too much trouble I’d like to revisit it. Where exactly is there a mistake here?[/quote]

That I’d somehow agree to a counterproductive alternative.

A norm is reinforced by the frequency of encountering it. If my model for the reproductive sexes is for them to leave their parents home, and hopefully direct the procreative act into marriage as early as possible, I want that model experienced as often as it can possibly be encountered. Therefore, the infertile male and female who is married, and encountered on the street, still reinforces the model. One more man and wife encountered.

Furthermore, we’d end up reinforcing the frequency for which members of the opposite sex, who are still intimately involved but not married, are encountered. Sex between the reproductive sexes outside of marriage. In short, counterproductive.

179

[quote]Sloth wrote:

A norm is reinforced by the frequency of encountering it. If my model for the reproductive sexes is for them to leave their parents home, and hopefully direct the procreative act into marriage as early as possible, I want that model experienced as often as it can possibly be encountered. Therefore, the infertile male and female who is married, and encountered on the street, still reinforces the model. One more man and wife encountered.

Furthermore, we end up reinforcing the frequency for which members of the opposite sex, who are still intimately involved but not married, are encountered. Sex between the reproductive sexes outside of marriage. In short, counterproductive.[/quote]

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

Why should the relationship between a barren woman and her lover be elevated to a status above my own friendships? Why should the state recognize their relationship. The state’s sole concern here, remember, is to see to it that another generation of taxpayers is brought into the world. This relationship in question has EXACTLY as much chance of accomplishing that task as does the relationship between two men. If we’re going to allow her (our poor barren subject) to marry, then what could possibly stop us from allowing two men or even a man and a panda bear to marry?

Your logic, not mine.

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.

180

[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.