Why do you keep replying to me, when you made it clear a few weeks ago that you have no respect for me, consider me a liar, and can only respond in derogatory terms?[/quote]
Because my responses to points you are attempting to make add value to the argument against gay marriage, so it is worthwhile, even if you serve as a strawman (not the logical fallacy strawman).
I always focus on the topic until you introduce your character into the discussion by arguing in bad faith, assuming invidious motives of your opponents, or otherwise refuse to stick to the truth.
If you are prepared not to do those things, game on.[/quote]
I think most people on these boards, Zeb excepted, would disagree with you. I do not argue in bad faith, nor am I a liar. If you think otherwise, you know nothing about me. I am guilty sometimes of assuming invidious motives, and also of getting more personal than I would like. But for the most part, I genuinely try to keep the discussion focused on the topic.
I’ll take your post as an agreement to keep the discussion civil, and will do my best to do the same.
Nature doesn’t want anything, nor does it “not want” anything.[/quote]
“Want” as in “provide” - not “want” as in “making a value judgment”.[/quote]
If nature wanted humans to live in cold climates, wouldn’t nature provide humans the necessary adaptations?
Sorry, the “natural” argument fails. I expect a bit better from you.
Forlife has a point - gays have/end up with kids all the time, and those gay couples that have kids are better off married than not.
Further, I see more harm being done to society for trying to ‘incentivize’ everyone to be heterosexual than to allow homosexuals to marry. The danger you seem so worried about hasn’t come to fruition in the last two decades of recognized homosexual unions.
This doesn’t make sense. If homosexuality is natural - that is, a product of nature (and I am not here to argue its not) - then why must homosexuals have to go outside of their own nature to have children?
If nature wanted homosexuals to reproduce, wouldn’t there be a natural mechanism for it to happen?
[u]And the argument to Brother Chris is apparently that no one should be forced to act outside their nature in the name of a (false) higher priority - i.e., being chaste or staying with the mother of a homosexual man’s children after he discovers his homosexuality - if this is so, then why is it that homosexuals should indulge in “acting outside their nature” at their leisure in other aspects?
It doesn’t add up, and you’re trying to eat your cake and have it to. On one hand, you argue you are confined to your “nature” and that’s just the way it is, so everyone must get over it and not interfere with what nature has commanded…on the other, you are more than happy to avail yourself of acting outside your “nature” when it benefits you.
Can you sqaure this circle? Or is it simply a matter of “if I want it, I get it, and I can rationalize it all after the fact?”[/u]
EDIT: underlined is new, hit “reply” too soon.[/quote]
Children of gay parents benefit when those parents are married, irrespective of whether or not they are considered to be conceived naturally.
To the extent that nature has a purpose to procreate, gays contribute to that purpose as caretakers of unwanted offspring.
In that regard, gays raising adopted children aren’t acting outside their nature.
Furthermore, it may be natural for gays to desire procreation themselves. That they do so through surrogacy, or in future through genetic intervention, doesn’t make that desire any less natural. The method may be nontraditional, but remember the saying from Jurassic Park? Nature finds a way. Nature doesn’t much care how procreation happens, as long as it happens.
Of course, nature doesn’t actually have intelligent purpose or desire…I’m only using that language for consistency with the questions you asked.
If nature wanted humans to live in cold climates, wouldn’t nature provide humans the necessary adaptations? [/quote]
Well, it has. But you miss the point.
No, in any event, you didn’t explain why “the natural argument” fails, but you aren’t quite getting it - Forlife (and others) reply to any criticism that gays shouldn’t follow through on their homosexuality as being contrary to what nature has commanded. That’s fine - the question I have why is homosexuals are conveniently selective about following the commands of nature - i.e., they only use this argument when it benefits them, but not when it hurts them.
Well, that isn’t quite right as a matter of definition - gay couples don’t have kids. Homosexuals may have kids from previous relationships that they want to raise together, but gay couples don’t have children. And this is no mere issue of semantics - it matters because if we accept that as “ok”, we have conceded the idea that those kids should be raised by their biological parents in a nuclear family.
And, see, from society’s point of view, I am not sure that is a good concession.
You miss the point again - in these places where gay marriage is recognized, what is the status of marriage generally? Has it markedly improved the degradation of marriage we have seen since the 50s? Has it arrested the decline? Is the effect nil? Has marriage rates and effects gotten worse?
That is the canary in the coal mine, not whether “ploygamy” popped up overnight. Step one is, of course, the general weakening of marriage from the concept of the union of parenthood between the biological parents of a child. How has that fared?
Children of gay parents benefit when those parents are married, irrespective of whether or not they are considered to be conceived naturally.[/quote]
There are no children of gay parents. And this does not answer the question re: nature.
You made this up. Support this as a “purpose” that has a natural foundation (not a social one).
Unsupported - see above.
Surrogacy isn’t natural, and quotes from movies isn’t going to get it done.
The question is “why must a homosexual go outside of the very nature you say commands you to be the way you are?” You argue “for nature” when it suits your purpose, and you argue “outside of nature” when it suits your purpose, and you haven’t adequately why we must rigorously follow nature’s commands in one area, but not the other. Why the distinction? That is the question.
So, is the rule stated thusly: if I desire it something outside my nature, it’s ok to act outside my nature, but if I don’t desire it and it is outside my nature, I am confined to my nature?
(I’m replying on an iPad, so I apologize for not cutting and pasting as I normally would. If I miss any of your points, please let me know and I’ll address it.)
Gay parents have children, whether through a former heterosexual relationship, through surrogacy, or through adoption. Whether or not you consider these children “natural”, they exist and they still benefit from having married gay parents. This directly addresses your argument that society must benefit from gay marriage, aside from it being a rights issue. Clearly, these children and society do benefit from having married gay parents, moreso than if the gay parents were unmarried.
2-3. You’re already jumping to personal accusations? Come on, dude. Instead of immediately accusing me of making something up, how about requesting more information? I’m serious about this…let’s keep it civil or I’m done. Now, to your question. Nature provides social mechanisms for preserving offspring, beyond direct reproduction. Google “kin selection hypothesis” and let me know what you think.
I’m arguing that the desire for gays to have children is natural, and that just because nature provides heterosexuals a way to procreate doesn’t mean nature won’t find a way for gays to procreate as well. Why would nature care if a child is born through surrogacy, or through combining the DNA of two women? A child is a child, and nature’s purpose of reproduction is still served.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I want to highlight one more thing:
So, is the rule stated thusly: if I desire it something outside my nature, it’s ok to act outside my nature, but if I don’t desire it and it is outside my nature, I am confined to my nature?[/quote]
I would state the rule as: What nature desires, nature finds a way to fulfill.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I want to highlight one more thing:
So, is the rule stated thusly: if I desire it something outside my nature, it’s ok to act outside my nature, but if I don’t desire it and it is outside my nature, I am confined to my nature?[/quote]
How is it “outside [their] nature” for homosexuals to want to raise/care for children? Simply because gay sex doesn’t make babies?
Can we apply the same logic to infertile/sterile heterosexuals? That, since clearly ‘nature’ does not intend for them to have children, it is “against their nature” for them to adopt or find other means?
Their (homosexuals) “nature” may be to desire/form partnerships which do not lead to procreation AND desire to raise children.
Gay parents have children, whether through a former heterosexual relationship, through surrogacy, or through adoption. Whether or not you consider these children “natural”, they exist and they still benefit from having married gay parents. This directly addresses your argument that society must benefit from gay marriage, aside from it being a rights issue. Clearly, these children and society do benefit from having married gay parents, moreso than if the gay parents were unmarried.[/quote]
I am short on time (must travel for work), but a quick response on this issue (which we have covered before):
The best situation for children is to be raised by their biological parents. No other arrangement is equal to this, and marriage is designed to act as the guardian of this fundamental principle.
If children are raised in an arrangement other than this, this is cause for concern, because we don’t want them to be - see the principle in #1.
Enactment of gay marriage - as you note (and outrightly want) - now provides an “equalized” arrangement for the raising of children, in complete defiance of the principle in #1. Thus, since the benefits are the exact same for children raised in traditional arranagements and those in alternative arrangements, culturally and legally we have done away #1.
This concession - and this is key - completely overturns the entire concept of marriage and family as we know it. It isn’y “in addition to” or “complementary to” traditional marriage and families - it undermines and dissolves the very principle we have hinged family and marriage on.
If you don’t believe in this “equality” - and few people actually do, because few people are prepared to say that another arrangement is the same or better than chidlren being raised by the two adults responsible for their birth - then you can’t, as a matter of principle, be ok with enactment of an institution that undermines this central concept that orders society.
While you claim kids (adopted, surrogate, etc.) would benefit “now” from gay marriage - e.g., with adoption, gay marriages could go adopt and reduce the number of children without parents - the problem is once you enact gay marriage, “going forward” you encourage gay couples to engage in more surrogacy, etc. and thus put more kids (not just the ones of the present) in an alternative arrangement. Here’s the problem - marriage is designed to prevent that, not encourage it. So, even if there are benefits now, the costs in the long run - encouraging more children to be raised in a family arrangement that is not the best (and certainly they don’t get to choose) is not the function of marriage.
In short, the concept of gay marriage as it relates to children relies on one central idea: a refutation of #1 above. Are you prepared to say that children being raised by their biological parents is not best way to raise kids? Are you prepared to say the traditional arrangement for raising kids is no better than kids being raised by someone other than their biological parents?
Your answer has to be “yes” or “no”. Because if you answer “no”, you cannot support any arrangement that undermines that policy, you cannot be ok with “equalization” if you don’t believe in “equalization”. If you say “yes”, that is fine, but the (enormous) burden is on you to explain why, generally, there is nothing “better” about children being raised by their biological parents.
Marriage, as we know it, exists to serve the principle that children ought to be raised by their biological parents. Once it serves a different mission, it ain’t marriage anymore.
[quote]forlife wrote:
You would have no problem being celibate and alone for the rest of your life? That’s a little unusual, but can you at least understand why most people would be offended if they were told they must either be celibate or marry someone contrary to their orientation? That is not happiness, by most people’s definition.[/quote]
No, if that is what I was supposed to do. I can understand what they are feeling, but the fact that they are called to live a chaste life does not change.
Jesus says in Matthew 19:8, “Moses by reason of the hardness of your heart.” After the fall, the hearts of man became hard. Noah got drunk (although not against the rules), Moses killed, Abraham lied and encouraged his wife to marry the Pharaoh instead of being killed, &c.
You can use my scriptures, but if you don’t use the totality of Scripture, living tradition of the whole church and of the analogy of the faith then I can’t really argue with you because we’ll be coming from two different points.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Sounds like “its better because we say so” - tautology?[/quote]
No, it’s better because it is the best way to breed trust as well as raise children.
Although I do believe the term nuclear is used generally not in comparison with extended family, but that the nuclear family is included, so father and mother and children (this may or may not include extended, but at the minimum nuclear family compared to single parent families).[/quote]
I keep hearing that straight marriage is valuable because it provides stability and security for children.
But people keep ignoring my point that gays already have children, and will continue to have children. Despite your opposition to homosexuality, don’t you agree that these children would be better off if their gay parents were married rather than just boyfriends or girlfriends?[/quote]
No, I do not think they would be better off it they were married.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Also, homosexuality is unnatural. Love it.[/quote]
It is. Or, do you wish to show us how homosexuality is natural?[/quote]
It happens in nature. Quite often, in fact.
Now, if you respond with “Well ______ happens in nature too, and that’s bad!”, I’m going to just tell you to STFU.
Making the claim that “Man + woman = baby, therefore gay = unnatural” is along the same lines as “Black man + black woman = black baby, white man + white woman = white baby, therefore interracial = unnatural”. Those lines being that, in both cases, you’re taking a childishly shortsighted view of something that involves biology, sociology, psychology, and sexuality.
I dont know why I waste my time, though - your aversion is based on magic book about sky wizard, and deserves little consideration.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Also, homosexuality is unnatural. Love it.[/quote]
It is. Or, do you wish to show us how homosexuality is natural?[/quote]
It happens in nature. Quite often, in fact.
Now, if you respond with “Well ______ happens in nature too, and that’s bad!”, I’m going to just tell you to STFU.[/quote]
Um, no. I don’t believe when people say “nature” people (at least not me or those who I usually talk to) are talking about what dumb animals do, there is scientific reasons for those things that happen in nature (I’ll talk on that later if you wish). When speaking of what happens in “nature,” I mean has the overall societies, cultures, and religion through the history elevated a homosexual relationship to the level a heterosexual relationship which produces children?
No, that is not what I am saying, like I said biologically/genetically there is no difference between a black man and a white man. I haven’t done the research, but I will take the word of some scientist at the moment.
However, in the philosophical, sociological, and psychological in the overall picture of the world, no major (or it seems minor) society, culture (until the last 25 years), or religion has elevated homosexual union to the level of heterosexual unions. They have participated, possibly even enjoyed those homosexual unions, but never have they thought of them as the same as heterosexual union.
[quote]
I dont know why I waste my time, though - your aversion is based on magic book about sky wizard, and deserves little consideration.[/quote]
Well, I do like magic (slight of hand), but my magic books don’t really have anything on homosexuality. As well, I have explained several times that I don’t solely from the Bible, being Catholic that should be obvious, but I’ll clarify that I don’t solely draw from the Traditions of the Catholic Church unless you consider natural law, economics, psychology, politics, American tradition, sociology, anthropology, &c. to be part of Catholic Tradition. I’ve explained this, so let’s stop with this “based on a magic book.” You should know this, I have explained this to you, stop attacking me and have a conversation with me, please.
Ok, Chris, explain how homosexuality is “unnatural”, being as it has appeared in every major (and minor)society in history. Or are you confusing “unnatural” with “unaccepted”?
Gay parents have children, whether through a former heterosexual relationship, through surrogacy, or through adoption. Whether or not you consider these children “natural”, they exist and they still benefit from having married gay parents. This directly addresses your argument that society must benefit from gay marriage, aside from it being a rights issue. Clearly, these children and society do benefit from having married gay parents, moreso than if the gay parents were unmarried.[/quote]
I am short on time (must travel for work), but a quick response on this issue (which we have covered before):
The best situation for children is to be raised by their biological parents. No other arrangement is equal to this, and marriage is designed to act as the guardian of this fundamental principle.
If children are raised in an arrangement other than this, this is cause for concern, because we don’t want them to be - see the principle in #1.
Enactment of gay marriage - as you note (and outrightly want) - now provides an “equalized” arrangement for the raising of children, in complete defiance of the principle in #1. Thus, since the benefits are the exact same for children raised in traditional arranagements and those in alternative arrangements, culturally and legally we have done away #1.
This concession - and this is key - completely overturns the entire concept of marriage and family as we know it. It isn’y “in addition to” or “complementary to” traditional marriage and families - it undermines and dissolves the very principle we have hinged family and marriage on.
If you don’t believe in this “equality” - and few people actually do, because few people are prepared to say that another arrangement is the same or better than chidlren being raised by the two adults responsible for their birth - then you can’t, as a matter of principle, be ok with enactment of an institution that undermines this central concept that orders society.
While you claim kids (adopted, surrogate, etc.) would benefit “now” from gay marriage - e.g., with adoption, gay marriages could go adopt and reduce the number of children without parents - the problem is once you enact gay marriage, “going forward” you encourage gay couples to engage in more surrogacy, etc. and thus put more kids (not just the ones of the present) in an alternative arrangement. Here’s the problem - marriage is designed to prevent that, not encourage it. So, even if there are benefits now, the costs in the long run - encouraging more children to be raised in a family arrangement that is not the best (and certainly they don’t get to choose) is not the function of marriage.
In short, the concept of gay marriage as it relates to children relies on one central idea: a refutation of #1 above. Are you prepared to say that children being raised by their biological parents is not best way to raise kids? Are you prepared to say the traditional arrangement for raising kids is no better than kids being raised by someone other than their biological parents?
Your answer has to be “yes” or “no”. Because if you answer “no”, you cannot support any arrangement that undermines that policy, you cannot be ok with “equalization” if you don’t believe in “equalization”. If you say “yes”, that is fine, but the (enormous) burden is on you to explain why, generally, there is nothing “better” about children being raised by their biological parents.
Marriage, as we know it, exists to serve the principle that children ought to be raised by their biological parents. Once it serves a different mission, it ain’t marriage anymore.[/quote]
Good post.
Your first point is an overgeneralization that ignores cases where
children aren’t better off being raised by their biological parents
(abusive families, etc.). In addition, it ignores the millions of
children who aren’t being raised by their biological parents for
various reasons (foster care, death of parents, etc.), irrespective of
whether or not gay marriage was legal.
Research has demonstrated that children of gay parents are equal on
standard measures of physical and psychological health to children
raised by straight parents.
If it is true that gay marriage provides the same benefits to
children that straight marriage provides, there is a compelling
argument to be made for the societal benefits provided by gay
marriage.
Gay marriage already exists in some states (and in other
countries), and to my knowledge there is no evidence that this has
threatened straight marriage in any way. Why would it?
There is no evidence that gay marriage would increase the number of
surrogate births. Gays already have surrogate children, without being
able to marry. Furthermore, there is no evidence that children born
surrogately would otherwise be born to straight parents. The
alternative would be for these children not to be born at all.
Marriage already provides benefits to children not being raised by
their biological parents. Nobody would argue an adopted child raised
by a married straight couple would not be better off than if the
straight couple weren’t married. Given that, marriage is beneficial
regardless of whether or not the children are raised by their
biological parents.
Gay marriage already exists in some states (and in other
countries), and to my knowledge there is no evidence that this has
threatened straight marriage in any way. Why would it?[/quote]
“Provisional data from 2008 indicates that the Massachusetts divorce rate has dropped from 2.3 per thousand in 2007 down to about 2.0 per thousand for 2008. What does that mean ? To get a sense of perspective consider that the last time the US national divorce rate was 2.0 per thousand (people) was 1940. You read that correctly. The Massachusetts divorce rate is now at about where the US divorce rate was the year before the United States entered World War Two.”
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Ok, Chris, explain how homosexuality is “unnatural”, being as it has appeared in every major (and minor)society in history. Or are you confusing “unnatural” with “unaccepted”?[/quote]