[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
Disagree. When the State gives you certain rights and privileges based on whether you are married, it is certainly justified. [/quote]
The state gives them because there is an inherent quality, that is ultimately carried out as a whole within that circumstance, that greatly impacts society as a whole.
[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
I’m assuming your stance on abortion is not to allow it. I’ll further assume it stems from the primary argument that the unborn child is a separate being which garners the same rights and privileges as someone who has been born.
Do those privileges and rights not expand outside of abortion?[/quote]
Not for medical treatment. I have internal bleeding and need surgery, but I am comatose, a guardian gives the go ahead. If I am unable to make the decision, a loved one can make it for me.
[/quote]
I think Life or Death is a bit different than choosing sexuality.
[/quote]
What?
Edit: You’re not suggesting society will prevent parents from having sexual orientation align with reproductive sexual organs, are you? Especially if abortion is still legal, how the heck would that ever be allowed?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Oh cool, homosexuals can visit a lab, in super small numbers (only 5% of the total pop. in the first place). Sorry, it’s a snowflake in a snowstorm. You know I’m right. You know the two hypotheticals I put down are instructive about the different natures of the two.
Would the vanishing of homosexuality have an impact on humanity even remotely approaching that of the vanishing of heterosexuality? One would be a crises, and the other an oddity. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it. But please, be brave, give an honest answer.[/quote]
Actually homosexuals can have sex to procreate if they so choose. It’s not like being gay means you are unable and/or unwilling to impregnate a woman (a lesbian at that) naturally. So the idea that the human race will go extinct as a result is not based on what we already know to be true.
The vanishing of heterosexuality will not cause a crisis. Who would be upset about EVERYONE (including himself) being gay? The heterosexuals? Oh wait, there won’t be any around to complain. Would it have an impact? Yes, but that doesn’t mean it will be a negative or positive one.
So five percent of the population would keep it going. They’d all get out there, having sex with the opposite and raise their kids in intact homes.
Come on, dude. You’re barely treading water in order to get past a brute fact of nature.
This can’t even be treated seriously.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Actually homosexuals can have sex to procreate if they so choose. It’s not like being gay means you are unable and/or unwilling to impregnate a woman (a lesbian at that) naturally. So the idea that the human race will go extinct as a result is not based on what we already know to be true.[/quote]
So five percent of the population would keep it going. They’d all get out there, having sex with the opposite and raise their kids in intact homes.
Come on, dude. You’re barely treading water in order to get past a brute fact of nature.
This can’t even be treated seriously. Stupid natural selection and its not needed sex drive.[/quote]
Define this crisis.
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Actually homosexuals can have sex to procreate if they so choose. It’s not like being gay means you are unable and/or unwilling to impregnate a woman (a lesbian at that) naturally. So the idea that the human race will go extinct as a result is not based on what we already know to be true.[/quote]
So five percent of the population would keep it going. They’d all get out there, having sex with the opposite and raise their kids in intact homes.
Come on, dude. You’re barely treading water in order to get past a brute fact of nature.
This can’t even be treated seriously. Stupid natural selection and its not needed sex drive.[/quote]
Define this crises. [/quote]
Wait, define the crises of having the sexually reproductive unit no longer existing/functioning? Really?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Actually homosexuals can have sex to procreate if they so choose. It’s not like being gay means you are unable and/or unwilling to impregnate a woman (a lesbian at that) naturally. So the idea that the human race will go extinct as a result is not based on what we already know to be true.[/quote]
So five percent of the population would keep it going. They’d all get out there, having sex with the opposite and raise their kids in intact homes.
Come on, dude. You’re barely treading water in order to get past a brute fact of nature.
This can’t even be treated seriously. Stupid natural selection and its not needed sex drive.[/quote]
Define this crisis. [/quote]
Wait, define the crises of having the sexually reproductive unit no longer existing/functioning? Really?
[/quote]
But we’ve (although maybe not you) already concluded that humans will still produce other humans. If you somehow have been led to believe that being gay = being sterile, impotent or barren then this conversation should probably be over. It’s not like, “hey mom and dad, I have something to tell you…I’m gay. Oh, and my testicles suddenly disappeared.”
[quote]Sloth wrote:
This can’t even be treated seriously.[/quote]
None of this can be treated seriously because it is a completely irrational line of thinking hence the “what if alien pigs invade us.” Pointing to the death of heterosexuality as being the reason to oppose gay marriage is no more laughable than saying we should ban gay marriage because of the potential of alien pig invasions.
It is not emotional. It IS nonsensical. Which is why I have no idea why you bring it up all the time in these debates. It is a 100% irrational topic to bring up as it has absolutely 0% chance of occurring. Have heterosexual births gone away in states that allowed gay marriage? No. Does it make sense to assume that they would if every state allowed it? No.
End of line of thinking, end of debate, end of nonsense.
Unless you would also like to talk about the laser pigs. You are far too intelligent Sloth to continue to bring up this strawman in debates on gay marriage.
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
But we’ve (although maybe not you) already concluded that humans will still produce other humans. If you somehow have been led to believe that being gay = being sterile, impotent or barren then this conversation should probably be over. It’s not like, “hey mom and dad, I have something to tell you…I’m gay. Oh, and my testicles suddenly disappeared.” [/quote]
So, you’re suggesting that gays are able and willing to start and maintain intact heterosexual households…
[quote]H factor wrote:
Pointing to the death of heterosexuality as being the reason to oppose gay marriage… [/quote]
You’re emotionalism is affecting you’re ability to read and comprehend.
My hypothetical is to demonstrate that heterosexual coupling carries with it a critical quality to all of humanity, thus there is justification for the government to discriminate on its behalf, leaving all other imaginative human arrangements (not just homosexual relationships) behind, in taking up the title and benefits of “marriage.”
And everyone here knows what may argument actually is, and what the hypothetical actually serves to demonstrate. Let’s stop with the pretending.
“What if everyone did it ?” is not a silly game.
It’s the first question you have to ask if you want to know if something has a chance to be remotely moral.
if the answer is “a disaster, but, don’t worry, i’m pretty sure it won’t happen”, chances are it’s immoral.
[quote]kamui wrote:
“What if everyone did it ?” is not a silly game.
It’s the first question you have to ask if you want to know if something has a chance to be remotely moral.
if the answer is “a disaster, but, don’t worry, i’m pretty sure it won’t happen”, chances are it’s immoral.
[/quote]
Then we better ban smoking, drinking, eating at McDonald’s, videogames, and everything else that would be a disaster if everyone did them all the time. Why stop at homosexuality? Ban TV watching. Ban rap music. Ban anything that is considered imperfect for all society to be doing.
Blacks marrying whites once was considered immoral and would have been considered bad if everyone was doing it. Society changed its opinion and it is changing it again. And trust me…life WILL go on. No matter how mad the chicken littles may get about being wrong, life will continue and people can die thinking about how horrible it is that gay people are allowed to do something that straight people can also do.
You don’t get to call it immoral and be right anymore than I get to call it moral. Sloth didn’t pick who he was attracted to and neither did I. Now why should we punish those who were born differently? Especially if this is what God intended for the religious people. The answer is God created gay people but God hopes man is smart enough to keep those people from being treated similar?
The world would be bad if everyone on the planet smoked weed. I don’t smoke weed and I don’t think the government should keep adults from smoking weed. That’s called liberty.
Hop on board the liberty train and lets let adults make decisions for themselves and quit trying to justify government control.
[quote]kamui wrote:
“What if everyone did it ?” is not a silly game.
It’s the first question you have to ask if you want to know if something has a chance to be remotely moral.
if the answer is “a disaster, but, don’t worry, i’m pretty sure it won’t happen”, chances are it’s immoral.
[/quote]
And here’s the thing, I’m not even trying to approach it from morality.
There’s two possible states.
No marriages are recognized by the state. The state privileges nothing, despite any one arrangement/relationship having a social wide major impact.
You are no better equipped to sort your relationship than two non-romantic drinking buddies.
The state says hey, inherently, and taken as a whole, males and females have sex with each other and produce children en masse. The circumstances have major socio-economic impact on us as a whole. We should try to incentivize this marriage institution. Rational justification.
“Fairness” is not rational justification. Especially when it only elevates a whopping one other arrangement out of every single imaginable relationship/arrangement consenting adults could possibly dream up.
If hetero-sexuality wasn’t inherently reproductive–guaranteeing reproduction, planned or not, in large numbers–I wouldn’t even support state hetero-marriage. There would be no point to it. None. They could manage their affairs just as the two non-romantic drinking buddies would.
[quote]H factor wrote:
Then we better ban smoking, drinking, eating at McDonald’s, videogames, and everything else that would be a disaster if everyone did them all the time. Why stop at homosexuality? [/quote]
This is a discussion about STATE recognized gay marriage.
[quote]
Then we better ban smoking, drinking, eating at McDonald’s, videogames, and everything else that would be a disaster if everyone did them all the time. Why stop at homosexuality? Ban TV watching. Ban rap music. Ban anything that is considered imperfect for all society to be doing.[/quote]
You can’t derive this from what i said.
If anything, you could conclude that we should not make any law that give a definite privilege to those who smoke, drink, eat at McDonald’s, etc.
ie : we, as a state, should not encourage it.
Which doesn’t mean we should not allow it.
And this conclusion would be perfectly correct.
That being said, maybe we should actually ban these things.
Not as a state, but as individuals and as a society.
My students aren’t allowed to smoke, drink, play videogames, watch TV or eat burger in my classroom.
That’s horrible. But they survive.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
Then we better ban smoking, drinking, eating at McDonald’s, videogames, and everything else that would be a disaster if everyone did them all the time. Why stop at homosexuality? [/quote]
This is a discussion about STATE recognized gay marriage.
[/quote]
And yet you keep bringing up things not related to it like it not being a big deal if homosexuality ended tomorrow and yet it would be a big deal if heterosexuality ended tomorrow.
That has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion and yet you have brought it up time after time after time. State recognized gay marriage and the state not recognizing it is not going to end heterosexuality nor is it going to end homosexuality.
[quote]kamui wrote:
Maybe we should let individuals make their own decisions as long as those decisions are not directly harming others. Maybe we would call that idea freedom and supposedly form a country off that idea?
And maybe those individuals who might protest me drinking or watching TV can kindly fuck off?
What kids can and can’t do in a classroom and what adults can and can’t do in their own life are two different debates.
[quote]H factor wrote:
And yet you keep bringing up things not related to it like it not being a big deal if homosexuality ended tomorrow…[/quote]
It wouldn’t be, outside of a curiosity.
It would be.
Of course it does. We’re talking about the when/why/how in justifying the STATE recognition of any one, a handful of, or all imaginative consenting adult relationships.
The state only stops discriminating when it doesn’t recognize/accommodate ANY imaginative consenting adult relationship/arrangement, regardless of number involved, romantic or not, under the umbrella of marriage.
Or, when it recognizes/accommodates every single imaginable consenting adult relationship/arrangement, regardless of number involved, romantic or not, under the umbrella of marriage.
Or, a guy like me makes a logical case (the inherent, widespread quality I’ve demonstrated, and which we already know even if we want to pretend) as to why the state could have an interest in elevating hetero-coupling towards a state recognized model called “marriage,” while leaving every other imaginable consenting adult relationship/arrangement (not just homo-romantic/intimate coupling) outside state recognized/accommodated “marriage.”
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
But we’ve (although maybe not you) already concluded that humans will still produce other humans. If you somehow have been led to believe that being gay = being sterile, impotent or barren then this conversation should probably be over. It’s not like, “hey mom and dad, I have something to tell you…I’m gay. Oh, and my testicles suddenly disappeared.” [/quote]
So, you’re suggesting that gays are able and willing to start and maintain intact heterosexual households…
[/quote]
So gays have to succeed at something heterosexuals fail at?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Or, a guy like me makes a logical case (the inherent, widespread quality I’ve demonstrated, and which we already know even if we want to pretend) as to why the state could have an interest in elevating hetero-coupling towards a state recognized model called “marriage,” while leaving every other imaginable consenting adult relationship/arrangement (not just homo-romantic/intimate coupling) outside state recognized/accommodated “marriage.” [/quote]
Ok, let’s play along with this. You build a case for the state to treat individuals different based on something they choose to do because it is best for society. Yet you are also against the state intervening in other areas.
Now how can you be against the state telling Catholics what to do and provide for? Safe sex is undoubtedly better than unsafe sex therefore Catholic hospitals need to provide contraceptives. Wanted pregnancies are far better than unwanted pregnancies so you should support the state telling Catholics they must provide birth control. Having health insurance is better than not having health insurance therefore the state should mandate health insurance. Soda is not good for you in high quantities and everyone knows it therefore you should be for a ban like Bloomberg was proposing.
The state should ban smoking, gambling, McDonald’s, alcohol, Nintendo Wii, Twitter, and all sorts of other stuff anyone can make a case could be “bad” for us.
Be consistent. If you think the government should incentive behavior you think is appropriate instead of treating people similarly then it is time to do that on a massive scale. After all we wouldn’t want to let people do what they want to do as long as it does not harm others would we? Shockingly you are anti-state intervention in health care in regards to your religion despite it being very easy to make the logical case that you need to get over your held beliefs and accept what everyone else does because we know what is best for other people (you shouldn’t, because the government needs to stay out of that, but sake of argument).
Why do you get to pick and choose when the government gets to enforce certain things? Is Sloth better than the rest of us as the ultimate decider of what a government should do? And why would we stop here if we determine that adults can’t be trusted to make decisions for themselves and be treated similarly when we have so many things out there we know is bad for you. Probably much worse for you than a “contract” almost half the people will void.
I’m sure that will get dismissed as emotional unlike the super logical case of zomg imagine if everyone catches gay!