Population numbers aren’t counter to my points. The fact remains is that heterosexuality not only continues the species, but that society also has a real interest in the manner it is propagated.
Oh, the old “what about blind people, told you eyes aren’t for seeing” argument. Of course they should be able to. Their medical exception doesn’t change the rule or make them each somehow not members of the opposite reproductive sexes. You know, the smallest biologically reproductive unit. A unit we have an interest, as a society, in seeing experienced as a norm as frequently as possible. A medical issue doesn’t change the fact that they are each members of the basic human reproductive unit. The homosexual couple isn’t, period. Ever. It serves a model to society for zilch.
Now, having acknowledged that their repercussions are vastly different for society, you must admit I have grounds to approach them much differently. There isn’t a reasoned argument as to why I’m logically obligated to support state recognition of homosexual couplings on behalf of society. And since I believe most, if not all, of my opponents reject the idea of an objective and absolute moral authority (superstitious gobbledygook) it can’t be argued that I am morally obligated to support it, either.
And I really don’t get the “how does it affect straight marriages” argument. Presuppossing it doesn’t…And? Neither does a club for non-romantically involved bird watchers.
That’s not an argument for the positive government action of recognizing, privileging, and putting in order this one other arrangement to the exclusion of all other imaginable human arrangements under marriage. Other arrangements consisting of any number (1-100’s, 1000’s, whatever) and manner (sexual/romantic or neither). Well, excepting 1 whopping other previous arrangement (2 person hetero marriage).
In fact, outside of state recognition for any and all imaginable human arrangements as being qualified for marriage, the equality/anti-discrimination argument is bunk. Is anyone here arguing for that? Or is there something special about binary homosexuality so that it, and only it, should be allowed to piggyback in on binary hetero (smallest bio reproductive unit) marriage. Simply the fashion of the moment?
sigh. Yes in a hypothetical where everyone is straight vanishes it would not be good. It would not be good if all the water in the world disappeared tomorrow. It would not be good if the Armageddon sized meteors hit us. It would not be good if alien ghost sharks invade tomorrow and enslave the human race.
Should we continue going with ridiculous hypotheticals that don’t have a chance of happening simply because two gay people love each other?
This doesn’t hold up. If gay people shouldn’t marry because they can’t reproduce why the hell should straight people? It’s not a medical exception they can’t reproduce. And if the grounds for marriage is the ability to reproduce then these people should not be allowed to marry. Neither should couples who are old enough to no longer reproduce. They are no longer able to do what you say is the most important thing which is the ability to reproduce. The state should stop recognizing the marriage the minute they can’t reproduce. After all this is your sole point for denying others.
Why stop there? How about married couples who can reproduce who don’t have kids. What’s the point of recognizing them if they don’t meet your standard for state recognized marriage?
All these scenarios have to be waved away for your argument to stay consistent.
And the cookie on top of it all: Gay marriage doesn’t harm straight marriage in any way. You said you want it to seem privileged and desirable and your point (I guess) is that it can’t be privileged and desirable if two women in love can do it.
So let’s call it what it is. You don’t want gay people to be able to do it because you think it devalues straight marriage.
I can’t keep going back and forth on this point. You’re better at arguing than this. Do we want to talk about the issue or the hypothetical what if straight people disappeared? This is what anti-gay marriage people have for their ammo now?
I’m not disagreeing here. It would be bad for society. It’s about as weak of a point as could be made.
Billions of alien ghost sharks invading to kill us all. It would be catastrophic!
So we both agree heterosexual coupling is intrinsically important to human flourishing. Homosexuality isn’t. Then it must be conceded that heterosexuality is of critical interest to society (even species wide). Homosexuality isn’t.
This doesn’t make any type of argument against gay marriage, but let’s see if we agree here:
Those who can’t reproduce whether gay or straight are not of critical interest to society. A woman or man born without the ability to reproduce is not of critical interest to society. Damn I thought you guys were the pro life people. What’s the point of these people even existing?
Since heterosexuality is of critical import for society there is a logical and reasoned argument for the positive governmental action in recognizing, privileging, and ordering it. This naturally and logically follows from our previous agreements. Homosexuality doesn’t have that, period.
Sure it is. Those who can reproduce are the only ones who should be allowed to marry. Those who can’t whether gay or straight should not be able to marry. Those who have passed the age where they can reproduce should be divorced.
All of these people are not of critical interest to society you’ve already said.
It just doesn’t follow your rules. If marriage should be privileged for only those who can reproduce then those who cannot should not be allowed to marry. Gay or straight doesn’t matter as the reproduction part is the one difference (also ignoring the fact that a gay couple can be together and reproduce through other means).
We both agree heterosexuality provides societal wide repercussions and impact. We both agree it is of critical import to society. We both agree homosexuality isn’t/doesn’t. I have the high ground.